NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusMAKANBHAI DAHYABHAI NAKUM

     C/FA/4879/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4879 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No

==========================================================
                      NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                                     Versus
                       MAKANBHAI DAHYABHAI NAKUM & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 20/01/2026
                                ORAL JUDGMENT


1.     This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 01.09.2022
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Morbi in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.29 of 2018.


2.     Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though
served, none appears for respondent No.2.


3.     The brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2017, at about
9:30 a.m., the minor deceased, Vijay, was proceeding to a flour
mill for grinding grains, riding his bicycle at a moderate speed
and on the correct side of the road. When he reached Panchasar


                                     Page 1 of 6
     C/FA/4879/2022                        JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




Square near the Kandala Bypass, at that time, a Dumper
bearing registration No. GJ-02-VV-753, driven by opponent No.1,
came in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed,
endangering human life and without following traffic rules and
regulations, and suddenly took a left turn. As a result, the
Dumper dashed against the bicycle of the minor deceased
Vijaybhai, and thus the impugned accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the Dumper. In the said accident, the
minor deceased Vijaybhai sustained fatal head injuries and, due
to the severity of such injuries, he succumbed to the same on
the spot.


4.     The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
learned Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the
insurance company with liability, ignoring the fact that the
driver of dumper was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident. The charge-sheet produced at
Exhibit 33 clearly states that the driver of the Dumper was
driving the vehicle without a valid and effective licence, thereby
violating Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal are
erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law.
Therefore, the appeal may be allowed.

5.     Mr. Nishit A Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for the
respondents, opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned
Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation on
the basis of the evidence available on record. It was contended
that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based


                             Page 2 of 6
     C/FA/4879/2022                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




on    proper          appreciation   of   evidence    and,     therefore,         no
interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the
appeal be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned
Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in light of the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v.
H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwar(i) Devi v. Amir
Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, along with the evidence produced
on record. The present appeal has been filed on the grounds of
liability, negligence, and coverage of the insurance policy.
However, the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is not in
dispute.


7.     The main contention of the appellant–insurance company
is that, on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending
vehicle, i.e. the Dumper, did not possess a valid and effective
driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not
liable to pay compensation. To prove the aforesaid defence before
the learned Tribunal, no witness was examined by the insurance
company. Merely making averments in the written statement
filed at Exhibit-22 cannot be treated as proof, as pleadings by
themselves do not constitute evidence. The insurance company
has thus failed to prove its defence or to examine any witness in
support thereof.


8.     Hence, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
in fastening the liability upon the insurance company, more


                                     Page 3 of 6
     C/FA/4879/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




particularly when the Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons in
paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment. So far as the
submission of the learned advocate for the appellant, relying
upon the charge-sheet papers produced at Exhibit-33, is
concerned, it is needless to say that mere production of a
charge-sheet does not constitute cogent evidence to substantiate
such a defence. The Tribunal is required to consider only the
evidence laid before it and, on appreciation of such evidence, to
fix the liability.


9.     As per the settled principles of law, the insurance company
is required to prove its statutory defence by producing cogent
and convincing documentary or oral evidence. In the present
case, neither any RTO Officer nor any of the opponents, namely
the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle, has been
examined by the insurance company. Mere production of police
papers cannot be treated as proof. It is well settled that a charge-
sheet or police papers, by themselves, do not establish that, on
the date of the accident, opponent No.1 was not holding a valid
or effective driving licence. Any evidence produced before the
Tribunal must be duly proved and properly appreciated. In this
regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jana Bai, Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade &
Ors. v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd., reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 512, wherein it has been held as under:



       “We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal
       trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section


                                Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/4879/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




        166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature.
        There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of
        appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The
        application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of
        evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which
        should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We
        find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not
        sustainable.”


10.     Since no cogent evidence has been produced before the
learned Tribunal to substantiate the defence raised by the
insurance company, and merely the charge-sheet papers have
been produced, it cannot be held that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident. Therefore, there is no evidence on the basis of which
the insurance company can be exonerated from its liability. Even
otherwise, the claimants are third parties, and it is the statutory
duty of the insurance company to satisfy the award in favour of
third parties under Section 150 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Therefore, no interference is required with the impugned
judgment and award.



11.     On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it
appears that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
and that the insurance company has failed to prove its defence.
Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly
the appeal is dismissed.




                                Page 5 of 6
      C/FA/4879/2022                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2026




12.      If any amount is lying deposited before this Court, the
same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to
return the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned
Tribunal forthwith.


                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/01/2026 17:55:14




                                              Page 6 of 6