SMT. ASHALATA ARAVIND INGALE AND ANR.versusTHE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR. SATPALSINGH RAJPUT-MANAGER LEGAL AND ANR.

HMK                                                       06. IA-6417-2026.doc


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 17666 OF 2018

The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through Satpalsingh Rajput-
Manager Legal & Anr.                          ...Appellants

           Versus


Ashalata Aravind Ingale & Ors.                ...Respondents

                       ALONGWITH
           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6417 OF 2026
                             IN
             FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 17666 OF 2018

Ashalata Aravind Ingale & Anr.                ...Applicants/Appellants

           Versus

The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through Satpalsingh Rajput-
Manager Legal & Anr.                          ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________________

Mr. Vasant N. More a/w. Mr. Saif Kazmi for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by KMC Legal Venture for the Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________

                                 CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

                                 DATED : 02nd SEPTEMBER 2026


                                  1 of 4
HMK                                                             06. IA-6417-2026.doc


P. C. :

1.        Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehta for the Appellant and
learned Advocate Mr. More for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Original
Claimants.

2.        The deceased was travelling in a tempo on 10 th August, 2011 from
Village Kamothe, District Raigad to Makali. It was about 09.15 pm
when the tempo driver came by Village Nibi, Taluka Roha, he lost
control and dashed to the tree. The deceased has sustained severe
injuries and he was admitted to the hospital. He scummed injuries. He
was a gratuitous passenger in a tempo. The vehicle was insured with the
Shriram General Insurance Company-present Appellant. Whereas, the
owner of the tempo is one Mr. Vikas Patil-original Opponent No.1.

3.        On this background, the claimants have filed claim petition before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaon, District Raigad
(Tribunal), which was contested only by the insured.

4.        The averments in the Petition filed before the Tribunal are denied.
Additionally, it was contended that driver of the tempo was not holding
valid and effective driving license. Claimants Ashalata entered into
witness box and relied upon the documents, whereas, Insurance
Company examined one Mr. Vishal Nawle. There is First Information
Report (FIR) registered against the driver under Section 279, 304A,
337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 181,
3(1)/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These Sections of the Motor


                                     2 of 4
HMK                                                          06. IA-6417-2026.doc


Vehicles Act, 1988 suggest that he was not possessing a valid license at
the time of accident. During the arguments, Mr. Mehta made following
submissions :-

      a)    The driver Maula Ashin Chandgude not holding a
      driving license is duly proved on the basis of a copy of the
      First Information Report (FIR), which is relied upon by the
      claimants themselves. That is how the insured has committed
      a breach of the policy by allowing the driver to drive the
      vehicle who is not possessing a valid license.

      b)    The deceased was a gratuitous passenger and it cannot
      be considered as a third party.

5.    Mr. More has supported the judgment for two reasons. Firstly,
merely filing a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) mentioning
the relevant Sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not sufficient. It
has to be proved by examining the witness. Secondly, there is already a
pay and recovery order, and as such, there is no requirement of any
interference.

6.    The learned Tribunal has rejected the ground of the breach of the
policy for not holding license. In paragraph 19, the learned Tribunal
observed “merely filing of the charge sheet is not sufficient. If there is
judgment on conviction, it can be considered” . Additionally, it is
observed that “the driver Maula Ashin Chandgude or an authorized
person from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) was not examined in

                                  3 of 4
HMK                                                          06. IA-6417-2026.doc


paragraph no. 15”. In the Petition, the learned Tribunal has observed
that the deceased Ashalata was a gratuitous passenger.

7.       Even though, such findings are there, the Tribunal has given
benefit of not holding the Appellant liable, but only directed the
Appellant to pay that amount and then recover it from the insured.
These directions are issued on the basis of the observations in the case of
Manura Khatun & Ors. vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. 1. Considering
the observations therein, I do not find that the the Tribunal has
committed any error in coming to the said conclusion.

8.       The interest of the Insurance Company is already protected by
passing pay and recovery order, so no interference is required.

9.       Appeal is dismissed.

10.      Consequently, Interim Application does not survive and is
disposed of accordingly.

11.      Statutory deposit along with interest be transferred to the
Tribunal.




                                                 [ S. M. MODAK, J. ]




1     AIR 2017 SC 1204

                                  4 of 4