Bombay High Court
MR. YASHWANT RAJARAM PATIL AND ANR.versusMR. OMPRAKASH RAMGOPAL CHOUDHARY AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed; the Tribunal's dismissal is set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration on the basis of the existing evidence.
Summary
The parents of the deceased Vikas Patil appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) which had dismissed their death claim on the ground of a variance in the vehicle registration number and lack of eye‑witness testimony. The High Court examined the FIR, charge‑sheet, final police report, insurance policy and registration certificate, finding that these documents sufficiently identified the offending Maxi‑Cab (MP‑09‑FA‑0292) and that the insurer was aware of the correct registration. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in refusing to give proper weight to the certified police documents and in overlooking the charge‑sheet. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the Tribunal’s judgment was set aside and the matter remanded to the MACT for reconsideration on the existing record without permitting fresh evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the variance in the vehicle registration number justifies dismissal of the death claim.
- Whether the evidence on record, including police reports and the insurance policy, is sufficient to establish the liability of the insurer.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the investigating officer’s testimony and the certified copies of police documents.
Subjects
- motor accident claim
- insurance liability
- vehicle registration variance
- evidence appraisal
- tribunal error
- remand
Judgment
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1397 OF 2016
1. Mr. Yashwant Rajaram Patil
Age : 60 years, Occ. Nil
2. Ambubai Yashwant Patil
Age : 55 years, Occ: Nil
Both R/of : Malegaon, Dist. Nashik ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Mr. Omprakash Ramgopal Choudhary
R/o. Main Road, Rangwasa Rao,
Indore (M.P.)
2. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Merchant Chambers, Shaimar Chowk,
In front of Nashik Gymkhana
Nashik.
3. Manisha Vikas Patil
Age : 30 years, Occ.: Nil,
4. Namesh Vikas Patil
Age : 5 years, Occ. Education
5. Rinku Vikas Patil
Age : 3 months, Occ : Nil,
Digitally
signed by
LATA
Opp. No. 4 and 5 through their
LATA SUNIL
SUNIL PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
2026.09.28
19:01:27
mother Opp. No. 3,
+0530
All R/o: C/o. Gaibhu Tarachand Patil,
Pitreshwar Colony Near Primary School,
Shahada Road, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. ...Respondents
1/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
*****
Mr. T. J. Mendon Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Sachin Raje for the Respondent No. 2
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 22nd September 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. I have heard learned Advocate Mendon and learned Advocate
Raje at great length.
2. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition vide judgment
dated 17th May 2016 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 154/2009. It was the
death claim and the petition was filed by the parents of the deceased
Vikas Patil. The Respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 are the wife and children
of the deceased Vikas. This petition was filed before Malegaon Court.
All the 3 have also filed a petition before the Dhule Court and it is
submitted that they have withdrawn it and joined the petition before
the Malegaon Court. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Maxi-Cab
whereas Respondent No.2 is the Insurer.
3. The claimants have examined Yashwant who is father of the
deceased. He is not an eye witness. One witness on the point of income
of the deceased is also examined. The owner has not filed written-
statement. Only the Insurer has filed it. There is some variance in the
2/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
registration number of the vehicle. That is why Tribunal has dismissed
the claim petition. This is an appeal filed by the parents.
4. Both the learned counsel have taken me through the following
documents:-
(1) Evidence of the parent.
(2) the arrest form of the accused Mohan Joshi dated 20 th
February 2009 whereas date of accident is 24th January 2009.
(3) Final Report/Chargesheet by Indore Police Station wherein the
vehicle number is mentioned as MP-09 FA 0292.
(4) Copy of FIR.
Admittedly, there is no reference of any vehicle. It was lodged
by the police against unknown person.
(5) The spot panchnama, Postmortem report, property search and
seizure.
5. Today, learned Advocate Mendon has tendered the following
documents:
(1) Copy of the Insurance Policy.
(2) Certificate of Registration
(3) In both the documents vehicle number is mentioned as
registration No. MP-09 FA 0292.
(4) Copy of Permit.
6. Both of them have relied upon various judgments.
3/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
7. According to Mr. Raje when there is variance in the registration
number, it may not be possible for this Court to decide it and he
prayed for remand whereas according to learned Advocate Mendon in
fact there was a sufficient evidence available before the Tribunal and
this Court being last fact finding Court can certainly appreciate this
evidence which was not done by the Tribunal.
8. In addition to earlier judgments learned Advocate Mendon
relied upon the following judgments:
1) Raj Kumar Das (deceased) through LRs v/s. National
Insurance Co. Ltd.1 .
2) Sakharibai Hasanali Makani and others v/s. Girish
Kumar Rupchand Gadia and others2 .
3) Reliance General Insurance Company v/s. Priyanka Das
and others3.
9. With their assistance I have gone through the findings given by
the Tribunal. They are as follows:
A) The father of the deceased has not seen the accident when his
son was driving a motorcycle on 24 th February 2009 at about
2.00 a.m.. He was dashed by Maxi Cab No. MP-09-FA-0292
which came from wrong side.
B) There is a FIR registered under relevant section of IPC.
1 2026 ACJ 1235
2 1997 ACJ 95
3 Civil Appeal No.12085 of 2026
4/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
Admittedly, vehicle number and name of the driver is not there
but it can certainly be said that driver of the Maxi-Cab is
negligent. For the said purpose there is no need to review that
evidence. I am concluding that it is driver of the Bajaj tempo
Maxi-Cab who was rash and negligent because he came from
wrong side. There is also FIR registered against him. So
when I am remanding the matter, the Tribunal need not revisit
this finding.
C) It is true that FIR is registered on the basis of statement given by
Ramshankar Patnaik and Vishnuprasad, both constables. Earlier
to FIR there was intimation given to the Police and when these
two police stated that dash was given by vehicle, that is how the
FIR came to be registered.
D) The Tribunal observed these documents are silent as to which
vehicle was involved in accident and who done it. Tribunal is
right. However, Tribunal overlooked the charge-sheet submitted
by the Police. Though Tribunal has referred about the Final
Report at Exhibit 43 involving the Bajaj Tempo Maxi Cab MP-
09-FA-0292, Tribunal has refused to consider this piece of
evidence for the reason the vehicle was not attached in
connection with the said accident. This reasoning is improper.
In a vehicular accident there is no need to attach the vehicle.
E) The Tribunal observed the statements recorded by the police are
5/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
not the part of record. It is not required because this is not a
criminal trial. It is a summary enquiry.
F) The Tribunal has noted variance of the number of offending
vehicle in the pleadings and other documents. When I have
perused the record, the registration number mentioned in the
documents is as follows:
(i) In the copy of the claim petition vehicle number
mentioned is MP-09-FA-0292 (the last digit 0 is
changed to digit 2). Similar is the entry in Column No.I
in the table of Para No.2.
(ii) When the Insurer filed written-statement, they have
pleaded that they are filing written-statement on the
basis of information given in the claim petition.
Alternatively, they have pleaded that driver of the Maxi-
Cab has driven the vehicle by following the rules and he
was not negligent. Admittedly, they have not examined
any witness. In Para No.6 of the written-statement the
vehicle number is mentioned as MP-09-FA-2092. This
is the number mentioned in the claim petition. They
have further submitted that they are not having any
policy in the name of said vehicle.
(iii) In further paragraph the Insurance Company has
6/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
mentioned that they are not possessing the policy for a
vehicle bearing registration number MP-09-FA-0292.
They have said this on the basis of registration certificate
and receipt for insurance annexed to the claim petition.
So the Insurance Company was fully aware about
variance in registration number mentioned in the claim
petition on one hand and registration number
mentioned in the documents annexed to the petition.
Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not said
anything about the policy for a vehicle having
registration number MP-09-FA-0292.
(iv) Today Mr. Mendon has produced the policy issued by
the insurer in the name of vehicle having registration
number MP-09-F-0292. This policy was also produced
before the Tribunal and it is referred by the father of the
deceased during his chief examination. It is at Exhibit-
41.
G) The Tribunal has declined to examine the investigating officer as
a witness for claimant. The Tribunal opined:
“Claimants had called the Investigating Officer, who
carried the investigation of Motor Accident Offence,
however, all the certified copies of police papers were
already marked exhibited. Investigating officer was
not the eye witness of the said accident, therefore,
7/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
his evidence also would not be helpful to show in
which manner the accident took place and which
vehicle was involved in the accident.”
H) The Tribunal further observed except the final report nothing
was brought on record to show that offending vehicle was
involved in accident and it drove the vehicle.
10. In fact the approach of the Tribunal is a faulty approach. It is for
the reason the Tribunal on one hand has observed that certified copies
of police papers were already marked and exhibited and refused to
examine the investigating officer, he being not an eye witness, at the
same time, the Tribunal has refused to give proper weigthage to the
certified copy of Final Report. It is true in a summary enquiry the
police papers which are public documents can certainly be read in
evidence. In fact the claimants were not at all in fault in taking further
steps to prove their case. They have summoned the investigating
officer with several attempts. It was the fault on the part of the
Tribunal in not appreciating police papers which are certified copies.
Hence, these findings cannot be said to be the proper findings.
11. Learned Advocate Mendon tried his level best to convince me to
decide the appeal on the basis of evidence. It is true he relied upon
number of judgments. However, when I have gone through those
judgments what I find is variance noted down in those judgments was
on a different aspect. The variance in those cases pertain to the manner
8/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
of the accident. That is to say in one record manner stated is in a
particular way whereas in other police record the manner of accident is
stated in a different way. In this case the issue is not about the manner
of the accident. The issue is about which vehicle is involved. So the
observations in those judgments are on the basis of different set of
facts.
12. As said above the Tribunal has committed wrong in considering
the certified copies of the Final Report and the Insurance policy
properly. It is true father of the deceased is not an eye witness. In a
motor accident it will not happen every time that the claimant has seen
the accident. Ultimately they deposed on the basis of information
collected and one of the source is police papers. Even though in the
FIR the vehicle number is not there, in a subsequent investigation the
vehicle number is disclosed and the driver is also disclosed. The
Tribunal ought to have given proper weightage to these documents.
Hence, I am inclined to remand the matter.
13. In view of that I am not making any comment about the
evidence adduced by the claimant on the income aspect. It is for the
Tribunal to appreciate that evidence by considering the recent
judgments in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Pranay Sethi and
others4. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
4 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680
9/10
LSP 1 Fa-1397-2016.doc
(ii) The judgment dated 17th May 2016 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the MACT,
Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.
(iii) Both the parties are directed to appear before the said
Court on 5th October 2026 at 11.00 a.m. without notice.
(iv) If either of the party will not appear, the Tribunal is at
liberty to decide it on the basis of available record.
(v) It is made clear that no fresh evidence will be adduced and
Tribunal to decide it on the basis of available evidence.
(vi) The Tribunal to decide the matter as early as possible
preferably within a period of two months from 5 th October
2026 on the basis of observations made herein above.
14. First Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
10/10
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.