Bombay High Court

BAJAJ AALIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR. ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNEversusABDUL GANI SUBHAN SHAIKH AND ORS.

Decided: 6 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The appeal is dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s award and findings.

Summary

The appellant, Bajaj Allianz General Assurance Co., appealed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.17,38,339 with interest, alleging the Tribunal failed to consider its defenses of policy breach and the driver’s invalid licence, and that the compensation was excessive. The accident involved a vehicle (MH12-MB-1862) owned by the first respondent, where the deceased pedestrian was struck and killed on 9 June 2015. The insurer claimed the driver, Jakir, was at fault and that the policy conditions were breached, but failed to produce evidence of the licence issue or policy terms. The Tribunal, relying on police reports and witness testimony, found the driver was speeding and negligent, and upheld the compensation based on the deceased’s employment and earnings. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s findings, noting the insurer’s lack of evidence, and dismissed the appeal, allowing the claimants to withdraw the awarded amount with interest.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the insurer's defenses of breach of policy terms and the driver’s licence validity.
Whether the insurer proved the alleged breach of policy conditions and licence invalidity.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.

Subjects

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Insurance defense
Policy breach
Driver licence validity
Compensation assessment
Negligence
Appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

67 FA 1104-25-C.DOC

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1104 OF 2025

Bajaj Allianz General Assurance Company …Appellant
Limited
Versus
Abdul Gani Subhan Shaikh and ors. …Respondents

Mr. Sarthak S. Diwan, for the Appellant.
Mr. Himanshu Jha i/by Mr. Yogesh Pande, for the Respondents.

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 6th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PC:-

1. By consent of both sides, heard finally.

2. This appeal is filed by the Insurer being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 6th March, 2020 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune in M.A.C.P. No.451 of 2015,
whereby Claimants were allowed with direction to the Opponents
to pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs.17,38,339/- with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

3. The Insurer takes exception to the said judgment and award
on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the
defences taken by the Insurer and proved by leading evidence.

Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
RAJESH SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
2026.02.12
15:27:38
+0530

Page 1 of 4
th
6 February, 2026.
67 FA 1104-25-C.DOC

4. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, defences
taken by the Insurer i.e. breach of terms and conditions of the
policy, the driver of the vehicle not having effective and valid
driving license, so also with regard to as to the person who actually
was driving vehicle in question are duly substantiated. Similarly, he
raised challenge to the quantum of compensation granted by the
Tribunal on the ground that it is excessive.

5. Learned counsel for the Claimants supported the impugned
judgment and award.

6. There is no dispute on the fact that on 9 th June, 2015 at
about 4.00 p.m. while deceased was returning home by walk, she
was given dash by a car bearing registration No.MH12-MB-1862
Respondent No.1 insured with Respondent No.2. In the said
accident, deceased died. Deceased was government employee
drawing salary of Rs. 20,349/- per month.

7. In the written statement filed by the Insurer specific plea
was raised with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver
of the offending vehicle in occurrence of the accident. It was
claimed that vehicle was driven carefully in the moderate speed
and the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of
deceased herself. Defence was also taken in respect of the breach
of conditions of the policy.

8. Perusal of the record indicates that though the plea was
raised by the Insurer with regard to the driving license, there is no
evidence led before the Tribunal except for examining witness, is
the employee of the insurance company. The Insurer has failed to

Page 2 of 4
th
6 February, 2026.
67 FA 1104-25-C.DOC

lead any evidence to show there being terms and conditions of the
policy. In so far as negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly
taken into consideration evidence on record in order to hold that it
was duty and responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to drive the
same carefully in a crowded place to avoid occurrence of any
accident. Tribunal by carefully considering evidence of Jakir, driver
of offending vehicle has held that the vehicle was in high speed
and therefore, could not be controlled to avoid accident. The
finding recorded are in consonance with evidence on record. The
Claimants contention with regard to the accident is supported by
police papers on record.

9. This evidence further shows that the offending vehicle was
being driven by Jakir and not by Opponent No.1. there is no
evidence led before the Tribunal to prove contrary. Moreover,
Insurer has also failed to prove any breach of conditions of policy.

10. The evidence led by the Claimants with regard to the
employment and income of the deceased is supported by
documentary evidence placed on record and as such no possibility
is seen in the findings of Tribunal on the said issue determination
of compensation.

11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in the
appeal.

12. Hence, order:-

ORDER

(i) First Appeal stands dismissed.

Page 3 of 4
th
6 February, 2026.
67 FA 1104-25-C.DOC

(ii) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the
deposited amount alongwith accrued interest thereon.

(iii) The statutory amount be transmitted to the
Tribunal alongwith accrued interest thereon. The
parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.

(iv) Record and proceedings be sent back to the
Tribunal.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{

Page 4 of 4
th
6 February, 2026.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…