NITA NARENDRA DUTHADE AND ORSversusDIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

2026:BHC-AUG:24260


                                                                          fa4029.23
                                                   -1-


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              1005 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4029 OF 2023
                                             WITH
                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4820 OF 2026

                      Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd
                                               VERSUS
                                 Nita Narendra Duthade and others
                                                    ...
                 Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Atul B. Gatne
                 Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Surendra Suryawanshi h/f Mr.
                 Gaurav L. Deshpande
                                                   …..

                                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                     DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026

                 PER COURT :-


                 1.       This appeal is preferred by the Insurance company against

                 the judgment and award dated 12.04.2023, passed by the learned

                 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanded, in Motor

                 Accident Claims Petition No. 66 of 2019.



                 2.       Brief facts of the case are as follows:-



                 a)       The deceased Narendra was husband of respondent No.1,

                 father of respondent No.2 as well as son of respondent No.3.

                 Respondent No.4 is the driver/owner of the offending truck.    On

                 31.12.2018 at about 3.30 p.m. late night, Narendra was riding the

                 motor cycle bearing No. MH-22-AC-2993, proceeding to his house.
                                                               fa4029.23
                                  -2-

When he reached near Bhavatyanagar Malegon road point, a truck

bearing No. MH-26-H-7553, gave a dash to his motor cycle. The

driver of the said truck was driving the truck in rash and negligent

manner. Narendra sustained grievous injury to his head. He died on

the spot.     The claim was made under different heads and the

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed.



b)          The appellant Insurance Company strongly opposed the

claim petition and contended that it was not liable to pay any

compensation. It was submitted that the case was not of a vehicular

accident. According to the appellant, deceased Narendra was under

the influence of liquor and had fallen on his own, thereby sustaining

the injuries. The accident, therefore, occurred due to his own

negligence. It was further contended that, being under the influence

of liquor, he was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent

manner, and hence no damage was caused to the truck.               The

learned Tribunal, however, held that the claimants had proved that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the truck. The Tribunal further held that the insurance policy

was valid and that respondent No. 2 had failed to prove the defence

of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, the

claim petition was allowed, and compensation of Rs.12,92,400/- was

awarded.
                                                               fa4029.23
                                  -3-



3.       Learned advocate for the appellant pointed out the

pleadings, evidence, grounds of objections of appeal and the reasons

and findings in the impugned judgment. Learned advocate for the

appellant pointed out the C.A. report and the spot panchnama

alongwith the postmortem report.         He submitted that, in the

postmortem report, the doctor had noted the presence of alcoholic

contents in the stomach of the deceased, Narendra. He submitted

that the C.A. report also indicates the presence of alcohol. The

incident took place on 31.12.2018 at about 3:30 a.m. He further

submitted that, if the incident had occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck, some damage

would certainly have been caused to the truck. These aspects were

not considered by the learned Tribunal. He contended that the

reasons assigned and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal

are neither legal nor correct. He further submitted that such a claim is

not maintainable. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment

and award be set aside and that the claim petition filed by the

claimants be dismissed.



4.       Learned advocate for the respondents-claimants strongly

opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal, after

considering the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion, on
                                                              fa4029.23
                                 -4-

the preponderance of probabilities, that the driver of the truck was

responsible for Liberation Sansthe occurrence of the accident and

that the rash and negligent driving on his part was duly proved. The

evidence of the claimants is not shaken in the cross examination.

Even the driver of the offending truck faces the trial of rash and

negligent driving, he can be made complaint that he has been falsely

implicated in the said crime.     Evidence of the claimants is not

disputed. Admittedly, there is no eye witnesses to the incident. The

motor cycle sustained damage which is not possible otherwise than

the vehicular accident. The respondent No.1 driver/owner remained

absent during the trial. The evidence is not recorded. He has been

examined on behalf of the appellant Insurance company. The said

evidence cannot be relied upon and the Tribunal has rightly relied

upon the said evidence. He lastly prayed to dismiss the appeal.



5.       On perusal of the impugned judgment alongwith the oral

and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the decisive

evidence is required to be re-appreciated and discussed here.

Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incident of accident. It is

the case of driver that he parked the truck at the side of the road. No

any independent witness has stated that the accident took place in

his presence. The spot panchanama shows that motor cycle of the

deceased Narendra was lying in the middle of the road. The C.A.
                                                               fa4029.23
                                  -5-

report and the postmortem report show that the contents of alcohol in

the stomach of deceased Narendra were noted.



6.       There is no evidence to establish that the truck had

sustained any damage if such a severe impact had been caused by

the truck to the deceased Narendra. The present case is required to

be decided on the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Needless to state, the

expression means “the thing speaks for itself.” In the case in hand, if

the spot panchanama and the C.A. report are considered together, it

is difficult to accept the claimants’ case that the offending truck had

dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased Narendra. Merely

because the driver/owner did not lodge any complaint regarding his

criminal prosecution, no adverse inference can be drawn to conclude

that the vehicular accident occurred due to his fault. Further, there is

no explanation on the part of the claimants regarding the presence of

alcohol in the stomach contents of the deceased Narendra.



7.       If all these aspects are considered together, as pointed out

by the learned advocate for the appellant, the spot panchanama, the

post-mortem report, and the C.A. Report (Exh. 55), which indicates

the presence of 80 grams of alcohol, assume significance. Applying

the principle of preponderance of probabilities to the evidence

adduced by both sides, the claimants' version becomes difficult to
                                                                fa4029.23
                                  -6-

accept. The claimants have failed to establish rash and negligent

driving on the part of the driver of the offending truck. Merely because

the driver was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving, it cannot be

held that he was responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

Further, the very factum of the vehicular accident involving the

offending truck has not been proved, even on the touchstone of the

principle of preponderance of probabilities. Mere involvement of the

truck in the vehicular accident is not sufficient to fasten liability for

payment of compensation upon the appellant Insurance Company.



8.        In view of the above, the reasons assigned and the findings

recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard are not correct.

Therefore, interference with the impugned judgment and award is

warranted. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the

impugned judgment and award deserve to be set aside. Hence, the

following order:-


                              ORDER


I.      The first appeal is allowed.


II.     The impugned judgment and award dated 12.04.2023 by the

        learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanded

        in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 66 of 2019 is set aside.
                                                            fa4029.23
                                -7-

III.   The record and proceedings be sent back.


IV.    The amount deposited while granting stay to the execution of

       the impugned judgment and award, be refunded back to the

       appellant after the appeal period is over. The 50% amount

       paid to the claimants on usual undertaking be refunded to the

       appellant alongwith accrued interest thereon, after the appeal

       period is over.


9.      The civil application No.4820 of 2026 is also disposed of.



                                 (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/