Bombay High Court
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusSUREKHA DWARKANATH THORAT AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal's award of compensation is upheld.
Summary
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 5,02,000 to the heirs of a deceased motorcyclist who was a pillion rider in a June 2006 accident involving a truck and an opposing motorcycle. The truck was owned by Kisan Mahadu Thorat and insured by United India Insurance Company (the appellant), while the offending motorcycle was owned by Rupesh Bhoir and insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 6). United India Insurance appealed, arguing that the evidence did not establish liability of the truck driver or a breach of the insurance policy. The High Court examined the documentary evidence, including the FIR and eyewitness testimony, and found the Tribunal had correctly assessed liability and the insurer’s burden of proof. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the statutory deposit and interest to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.
Issues considered
- Whether the truck driver and the insurer, United India Insurance, can be held liable for the accident under the motor insurance policy.
- Whether there was a breach of the terms of the insurance policy that would absolve the insurer from liability.
- The burden of proof for establishing a breach of policy rests on the insurer.
Subjects
- motor accident
- insurance liability
- breach of policy
- compensation award
- burden of proof
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Judgment
909-CAF-4432-2013-IN-FA-1719-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4432 OF 2013
IN
Digitally signed
by SATISH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1719 OF 2013
RAMCHANDRA
SATISH SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR Date:
2026.08.24
19:25:57
+0530
ALONG WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1719 OF 2013
[NOT ON BOARD: TAKEN ON BOARD]
United India Insurance Company ]
Limited, Motor Third Party Hub, ]
Union Cooperative Insurance Building, ]
5th Floor, Sir P.M.Road, Fort, ]
Mumbai–400 001. ]...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
1. Surekha Dwarkanath Thorat, ]
Age : 42 Years, Occupation : Household. ]
]
2. Harshal Dwarkanath Thorat, ]
Age : 20 Years, Occupation : Student. ]
]
3. Kisan Mahadu Thorat, ]
Age : 82 Years, Occupation : Nil, ]
(Deleted) ]
]
All residing at : 2, Shirdi, Building ]
B.H.H. College Road, Bhiwandi, ]
Taluka : Bhiwandi, District : Thane. ]...Original Applicants
]
4. Rupesh Raghunath Bhoir, ]
Age : 28 Years, Occupation Business, ]
Residing at : Shelar, Taluka : Bhiwandi, ]
District : Thane. ]...Ori.Opponent No.1
Satish Sangar 1/5
909-CAF-4432-2013-IN-FA-1719-2013.doc
5. Hardas B. Patil, ]
Age : Adult, Occupation : Business, ]
Residing at : H.No.35, Post Kalher, ]
Bhiwandi, Thane. ]...Ori.Opponent No.3
6. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ]
3rd Floor, Shivkripa C. Complex, ]...Ori.Opponent No.4
Naupada, Thane. ] (Respondents)
====================================================
Mr.Nikhil Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Advocate for Applicant/Appellant.
Venture:-
Ms.Poonam Mittal:- Advocate for Respondent No.6–
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
====================================================
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Mehta for Appellant and learned
Advocate Ms.Poonam Mittal for Respondent No.6.
2. First Appeal is taken on board.
3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Thane (“Tribunal”) as per
the Award dated 29th June 2013 has directed the Respondent Nos.1to 4
to pay the amount of Rs.5,02,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Two
Thousand) along with other benefits. The responsibility on the
Original Respondent Nos.2 and 4 is equal. The Respondent No.2 is
before this Court being an Appellant.
Satish Sangar 2/5
909-CAF-4432-2013-IN-FA-1719-2013.doc
4. The deceased along with his friend was proceeding on one
motorcycle bearing No.MH-03/L/1010 on 6th June 2006 from Vada to
Bhiwandi. At that time, another motorcycle bearing No.MH-04-CQ-
3715 owned by original Respondent No.4 came from opposite
direction from Bhiwandi and by overtaking the truck. During that
exercise, that motorcycle driver lost control and gave dash to the
motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider. The offending
motorcycle was insured with the original Respondent No.4–New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.
5. The Claimants are the heirs of the deceased Dwarkanath. The
Original Respondent No.1–Rupesh Raghunath Bhoir is the owner of
the motorcycle who has given a dash and it was insured with the New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. i.e. the Original Respondent No.4. Whereas
the Original Respondent No.3 is the owner of the truck and it was
insured with the present Appellant i.e. Original Respondent No.2–
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
6. After the evidence, the Tribunal has held the driver of the truck
as well as the driver of the motorcycle bearing No.MH-04-CQ-3715 as
responsible for the accident. Learned Advocate Shri.Mehta submitted
that after considering the evidence, the liability cannot be fastened on
Satish Sangar 3/5
909-CAF-4432-2013-IN-FA-1719-2013.doc
the truck driver and on the Insurance Company because the evidence
does not suggest that he was responsible. Further argument is advanced
that the driver of the motorcycle has not entered into the witness–box.
He submitted that instead of holding driver / owner of truck
responsible, the Tribunal ought to have held the deceased and driver /
owner of offending motorcycle.
7. After considering the evidence, I find the Tribunal has properly
appreciated the documentary evidence adduced through Surekha
Thorat, the wife of the deceased. It includes the copy of the F.I.R.
which was registered against the motorcycle coming from the opposite
direction. The Original Respondent No.2 has examined one Gajanan
Nandgaonkar and Vitthal Nandanwar. It is on the point of driving
license of the driver of the truck. However, the absence of license could
not be proved. The learned Tribunal in paragraph No.18 has observed
that the evidence on the point of breach of terms of policy is not
believable.
8. The Claimant Surekha–wife of the deceased has given evidence.
So also, they have examined Faiyyaz Ahmed. The FIR is registered
against Kamlakar Madhavi who is the driver of offending motorcycle.
The Appellant has examined Gajanan Nandgaonkar and Vitthal
Satish Sangar 4/5
909-CAF-4432-2013-IN-FA-1719-2013.doc
Nandanwar. Driving license of driver of truck was issued to Ramnath
Kamleshwar. There was plea taken about breach of policy of the
insured truck that is Original Respondent No.3. This Court finds the
Tribunal has given more weightage to the evidence of Faiyyaz Ahmed.
Because he is eye witness. Burden to prove breach of policy is on
Insurer / Appellant. Mere breach is not important. It should be
fundamental.
9. Considering the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere in
the findings and hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
10. The statutory deposit along with the interest be transferred to the
Tribunal. The Tribunal to disburse the amount of compensation to the
Claimants as per the Award.
11. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Satish Sangar 5/5
Checking your session…