Bombay High Court

PREMLABAI @ PREMLATA CHANDRABHAN SHIRSATH AND ORSversusBAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: ABHAY S WAGHWASE

Holding

The court held that the cumulative evidence was sufficient to infer the involvement of the insured truck, and therefore the insurer's appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.49,06,412 to the heirs of Chandrabhan, who died after a motorcycle collision with a truck on 21‑12‑2010. The insurer argued that the truck (MH‑18‑M‑4652) was not involved, citing a delayed FIR, lack of eye‑witnesses, and alleged got‑up statements of two witnesses. The claimants relied on the delayed statements of Manoj Wagh and Pramod Pawar, the written statement of the truck owner, and physical damage to the truck to probabilistically establish liability. The court examined the credibility of the witnesses, the relevance of the truck’s dented bonnet, and the applicability of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Finding that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient on a pre‑ponderance of probabilities to infer the truck’s involvement, the court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and allowed the claimants’ application for withdrawal of the awarded amount.

Issues considered

Whether the truck insured by the appellant was involved in the accident despite delayed FIR and belated witness statements.
Whether the witness testimonies of Manoj Wagh and Pramod Pawar are admissible and sufficient to establish liability on a pre‑ponderance of probabilities.
Whether the insurer can deny liability under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the absence of direct eye‑witness evidence.
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award can be set aside on the ground of alleged non‑involvement of the insured vehicle.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Act
Section 166
insurance liability
motor accident compensation
witness credibility
preponderance of probability
delayed FIR
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:6229
FA-699-2016
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO.699 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10703 OF 2016

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune – 411 006

Through its Branch Manager /
Authorized Signatory, 2nd Floor,
Rajendra Bhavan, Adalat Road,
Next to LIC Building, Aurangabad. … Appellant
(Orig. Respondent No.3)

Versus
1. Premlabai @ Premlata W/o Chandrabhan Shirsath,
Age : 44 Years, Occupation : Service,

2. Abhilasha D/o Chandrabhan Shirsath,
Age : 22 years, Occupation : Education,

3. Bharat S/o. Chandrabhan Shirsath,
Age : 18 years, Occupation : Education

4. Daga Labha Shirsath,
Age : 72 years, Occupation : Education,

5. Chandrakala Daga Shirsath,
Age : 69 years, Occupation : Nil,

6. Shaikh Jahir Shaikh Bashir, }
Age : 62 years, Occu. : Driver, } Deleted as per order
R/o. Moglai, Dhule, } dated 06.09.2024
Taluka & District Dhule. }

7. Sikandar Dadu Pinjari,
Age : Major, Occu. : Business,
R/o. SitaramMali Chal, Chittod Road,
Dhule … Respondents
(Resp. Nos.1 to 5 – Orig. Claimants
Resp. Nos.6 & 7 – Orig. Resp. Nos.1 and 2)
FA-699-2016
-2-

…..
Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
…..
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 09 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 FEBRUARY 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. In this insurance appeal, there is challenge to the

judgment and order dated 07.12.2015 passed by learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule in M.A.C.P. No. 421 of 2011

awarding compensation by partly allowing the claim petition

instituted by present respondents/original claimants.

2. M.A.C.P. No. 421 of 2011 was instituted by heirs of

Chandrabhan by invoking section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

on the ground that, deceased Chandrabhan, while traveling on

motorcycle No.MH-18-Q-7742 on the Shirpur-Sulwade Road on

21.12.2010, was suffered dash at the hands of truck owned by

original respondent no.2 and he succumbed to the fatal injuries.

Attributing negligence to the truck driver, compensation was sought

from its driver, owner and its insurer i.e. present appellant. On

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned tribunal

partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the

tune of Rs.49,06,412/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
FA-699-2016
-3-

There is challenge to the above judgment and award,

fundamentally on the ground of non involvement of truck insured by

them.

3. Learned counsel for insurance company - appellant would

submit that, here, there was delayed FIR. According to him,

moreover even when accident was of 21.12.2010, on belated

statements of some alleged passers by, truck is impleaded to be

involved. That, he pointed out that, here, the Patrolling Officer, who

lodged FIR, has apparently reported dash given by unknown driver of

unknown vehicle. He pointed out that, one Manoj Wagh and Pramod

Pawar, after few days of the accident, gave statements about

witnessing the accident. However, he pointed out that, their evidence

is not credible and full-proof. According to him, they claimed to be

acquaintances of deceased, and therefore, there is possibility of these

witnesses to be got-up witnesses. He pointed to their statements and

would submit that, it seems to be their case that they saw motorcycle

lying on the road, and therefore, they had no witnessed the actual

collision or dash. According to him, same is the version of witness

namely Pramod Pawar. He pointed out that, they both claimed that

they have given chase to the truck, but did not note its number and

subsequently in their belated statements, they have named truck

insured by the appellant to be offending truck. He pointed out that,
FA-699-2016
-4-

there is, in fact, no eye witness to the same. According to him, merely

because on belated statements, charge sheet has been filed,

involvement of truck cannot be believed.

4. Questioning the veracity and credibility of the statements

of Manoj Wagh and Pramod Pawar, he pointed out that, according to

them, they claimed to have heard noise of application of break, but

even their such version stands belied by virtue of absence of break

mark in the spot panchanama. He also questions the unnatural

conduct on the part of these witnesses for not lodging the report

regarding the accident. For above reasons, he questions the

maintainability and sustainability of the judgment and award passed

by learned tribunal directing insurance company to pay jointly with

other respondents.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel seeks

reliance on the following rulings :

(i) Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc. v. Sai Ram General
Insurance Company Limited in Criminal Appeal
Nos.14718-14719 of 2025 (Supreme Court).

(ii) HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited v.
Ramesh Bajirao Chemte and Anr. in First Appeal No.309
of 2021 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench).

(iii) Vanita & Ors. v. M/s. Shriram Insurance Company
Limited and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.6794 of 2025
(Supreme Court).
FA-699-2016
-5-

5. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondents -

original claimants, while justifying the order of learned tribunal, took

this court through the charge-sheet comprising of statements of

Manoj Wagh and Pramod Pawar, he also took this court through the

cross faced by these witnesses and would submit that, their evidence

has remained virtually intact. He emphasized that, in cases of such

nature, rules of strict evidence are relaxed and cases are to be

appreciated on preponderance of probabilities; and, here, according

to him, the claimants had probabilized their defence to a greater

extent. He would submit that, insurance company having failed to

independently adduce any evidence or rebut the evidence, cannot

question the findings of learned tribunal for disproving the case of

claimants. He pointed out that, in the very written statement of the

owner of the offending truck, mere stand of negligence is taken and

there is no denial of involvement of the truck. He took this court

through the statements of above witnesses at Exhs.75 and 76 and

would submit that there is no reason to doubt the veracity or

credibility of these two witnesses. He pointed out that, merely

because their statements are recorded after a day or two, he could

not be open to doubting their story and brand them as got-up

witnesses. Further according to him, when these witnesses have

given plausible explanation for the delay i.e. on having learnt about
FA-699-2016
-6-

an accident being registered against an unknown person, they had

duly and promptly given statements to police, and as such, there is

no infirmity. He lastly submitted that, in accident cases, requirement

of standard proof is relaxed. For all above reasons, he justifies the

order of tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

6. The primary and fundamental objection raised by

insurance company in appeal is regarding non involvement of truck

bearing No.MH-18-M-4652 owned by original respondent no.2 and

insured by present appellant, who is arraigned as original respondent

no.3 before the learned tribunal. Specific case of appellant is that,

there is no iota of evidence regarding involvement of said truck and

on a belated statement of some witnesses, who are got-up witnesses,

involvement of truck is shown.

7. Admittedly, wife of deceased i.e. claimant no.1 is not an

eye witness. There is further dispute that, “khabar” at Exh.24 is by

police constable Piran Gulam Shaikh, who was said to be on patrolling

duty, but as pointed out, this khabar is of 21.12.2010 at 21:30 hours

and it just regarding coming across motorcycle MH-18-Q-7742 lying

on the road and a person also lying in injured condition and being

shifted on account of head injury. Till this point of time, there is no

reference about involvement of any truck. FIR seems to be recorded
FA-699-2016
-7-

on 23.12.2010 and charge sheet seems to have been filed on

25.05.2011, followed by other steps of investigation.

8. As pointed out, claimants have adduced evidence of two

witnesses, namely Manoj Wagh and Pramod Pawar. Statement of

Manoj Wagh finds place in the charge sheet and it is recorded on

25.12.2010, wherein he stated that on 21.12.2010, while he and his

friend Pramod were proceeding on their motorcycle from Shirpur

towards a Sindhkhed, around 9:15 p.m., one truck allegedly overtook

them in dangerously close distance. He claims that in the headlight of

the motorcycle he noted the truck number as MH-18-M-4652 and

further reported that after covering some distance, they heard loud

noise of application of break and when they reached said spot, they

noticed motorcycle rider lying on the road. Hearing their shouts, it is

alleged that the truck driver, along with vehicle, fled in the direction

of Sindhkheda. He further stated that, he realized that, the injured

was Chandrabhan, a Professor of S.S.V.P.S. college, Sindhkheda, at

that time, another motorcycle reached there and requesting them to

shift the injured to the hospital. This witness claims that he and his

friend chased the truck, but it managed to flee, and for want of fuel,

they could not chase the truck. He further stated that, on

05.01.2011, when he and his friend were present at his xerox shop,

from the peon of the college, they learnt that the police is yet to seize
FA-699-2016
-8-

the truck and that they are searching the vehicle and on learning to

that extent he claims that they gave statement.

9. Above witness is cross examined by insurance company

and the cross is as under :-

“Cross by Shri D.N. Pingale, Advocate for Resp. No.3.

4. As my xerox shop is near college and since
Shirsath used to come to my shop, I know him. I did
not notice the number of the motorcycle, which had
stopped on hearing my shouts. Both persons were
unknown. Police chauky is in Sindkheda village. We
reached Sindkheda around 9:30 to 9:45 pm. I did not
inform the police about the accident. On the next day,
I came to know about the death of Mr. Shirsath and
then I informed the police. Then I and Pramod
informed the police. Police recorded my statement
after two days. I am B.A. I had not noted down the
number of the truck, but I remembered it. The
number of motorcycle of my friend is MH-18-T-2447.
It is not true to say that the said truck had not given
dash to the deceased. I do not know whether
respondent no.1 was driving the truck as I had not
seen the truck driver. It is not true to say I am
deposing false as deceased was known to me.”

10. Learned counsel for appellant - insurance company would

brand this witness as got-up witness on two counts, i.e. firstly not
FA-699-2016
-9-

lodging FIR promptly and secondly giving belated statement and

ultimately his version to be unworthy of evidence.

11. Learned counsel for original claimants has also invited

attention of this court to the written statement of truck owner, which

is at Exh.20/B and as pointed, it emerges from the same that, there is

no denial of involvement of truck, rather reply is focused on deceased

motorcycle himself to be rash and negligent and plea is set up that

truck was moderate speed. Only on such count, liability is sought to

be denied.

12. Thus, here, on one hand, the owner of the truck does not

deny involvement, but only attributes negligence to the deceased and

his insurer takes up a plea of non involvement. Even in the written

statement of the insurance company in the trial court, amongst other

grounds, involvement is challenged on the merits by raising

simplicitor denial of truck to be rash and negligent. Even in

paragraph 17 of the written statement of insurance company, plea of

truck being driven in moderate speed by observing traffic rules is

apparently raised apart from raising plea of contributory negligence.

Therefore, taking such stand of insurance company before the

tribunal into account, it is doubtful whether it is open for insurance

company to question the involvement of the insured vehicle. Here,
FA-699-2016
-10-

there is charge upon investigation. On the seizure of truck in

question, its panchanama is drawn, showing the bonnet suffering

dents suggesting impact with another vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be

said that there was no evidence at all for fixing liability on truck.

Merely because khabar was about dash given by unknown driver of

unknown vehicle, on conclusion of investigation comprising

statements of witnesses like Manoj Wagh and Pramod Pawar,

claimants have indeed probabilized involvement of truck. Mere

typographical mistake in the date itself would not be sufficient to

discard other above discussed evidence.

13. I have gone through the rulings and citations tried to be

taken aid of, but facts in those cases are materially distinct than the

facts in the case in hand. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this

court, it is not open for appellant to seek reliance on the same. In the

case of Sithara N.S. Ors. (Supra), the vehicle was recovered one and

half months after the accident and no evidence exists to establish the

involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and also the report of the

Motor Vehicle Inspector did not support the appellant’s case. In the

case of Vanita & Ors. v. M/s. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) , it is

observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that mere mentioning name of

vehicle as Tata Magic in the inquest panchanama or in the FIR, would

not be sufficient to hold that it was the same Tata Magic belonging to
FA-699-2016
-11-

respondent no.1 and insured with respondent No.2, in absence of its

clear identification. In the inquest panchanama, registration number

of offending vehicle was not mention. In the case of HDFC ERGO

General Insurance Company Limited (Supra), the involvement of the

offending vehicle is not proved. Eye- witnesses did not provide the

vehicle number in their statements before the police nor did they

lodge any complaint with police. The accident occurred near the

petrol pump. However, none is examined from the petrol pump. Even

the station diary entry was made at the instance of CW-2, where he

had given information that unknown two wheeler vehicle had given a

dash. Hence, none of the rulings come to the aid of the appellant.

14. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and hence I

proceed to pass the following order :-

ORDER

(i) The First Appeal is dismissed.

(ii) In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal preferred by
the insurance company, the Civil Application filed by original
claimants for withdrawal of amount is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (b) and (c).

(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)

Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…