NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMOHASIN SHAIKH PATEL AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:43838

                                              1                           17.FA-2692-2013.doc



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 2692 OF 2013
                              NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
                                           VERSUS
                             MOHASIN SHAIKH PATEL AND ANOTHER
                                          WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13374 OF 2013
                                        IN FA/2692/2013
                                                  …
                             Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kulkarni Sudhir V.
                                                   …
                                                    CORAM     : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATE    : 24 th SEPTEMBER 2026

              PER COURT :
              1.         The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present
              Appeal in order to challenge the Judgment and Award dated
              20.06.2013 passed by the learned Ex Officio Member, Motor Accident
              Claims Tribunal, Latur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 258 of
              2008. The Appellant and owner of the vehicle are jointly and severaly
              held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/-, inclusive of the
              amount payable under the principle of no-fault liability, together with
              interest. The only contention raised by the learned Advocate for the
              Appellant/Insurance Company is that the policy of insurance was not
              in     force     on     03.05.2008,   being    the   date   on    which      the
              Claimant/Respondent No. 1 met with the accident. In support of the
              said contention, the learned Advocate for the Appellant has drawn
              the attention of this Court to the insurance policy placed on record,
                           2                        17.FA-2692-2013.doc



which indicates that the policy was effective from 14.01.2007 to
13.01.2008.


2.       The learned Advocate for the Appellant contends that, apart
from the aforesaid policy, there is no other document on record from
which it can be inferred that the offending vehicle was insured with
the Appellant/Insurance Company on the date of the accident.


3.       After hearing the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the
following point arises for my consideration:

(i)      Whether the Appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to be
exonerated from the liability imposed under the impugned Award?


4.       A perusal of the written statement filed by the Appellant
indicates that no defence to the effect that the insurance policy was
not in force on the date of the accident was taken therein. The
Appellant did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal. A perusal of
the cross-examination of the Claimant further indicates that even the
subsistence of the insurance policy was not questioned during the
course of the Claimant's cross-examination.    The policy document
placed on record is an unproved document. In the absence of any
pleading or evidence demonstrating that the offending vehicle was
not insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company on the date of
the accident, this Court finds it difficult to accept the contention
raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellant. The possibility of
                             3                             17.FA-2692-2013.doc



renewal of the policy after 13.01.2008 cannot be ruled out.


5.         In   the   considered     opinion    of      this    Court,      the
Appellant/Insurance Company was required to establish by cogent
evidence that the policy was not renewed after 13.01.2008.
Alternatively, it could have challenged the Claimant's statement in his
examination-in-chief that the offending vehicle was insured with the
Appellant/Insurance Company. Having failed to do so, the contention
raised on behalf of the Appellant cannot be accepted.


6.         As recorded above, the ground sought to be urged in the
present appeal finds no place either in the written statement filed by
the Appellant or in the cross-examination of the Claimant. In view of
the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned
Judgment and Award. Accordingly, the First Appeal stands dismissed
with no order as to costs.


7.         The Civil Application is also disposed of.



                                                ROHIT W. JOSHI
                                                   JUDGE




NAJEEB..