BAJAJ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTDversusPRADIP RAMCHANDRA KHARAT AND ORS

                                                                     40-WP10261-2026.DOC

                                                                                    Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 10261 OF 2026

                      Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd                     ...Petitioner
                                      Versus
                      Pradip Ramchandra Kharat And Ors                  …Respondents

                      Mr. Sarthak Diwan, for the Petitioner.

                                                    CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                    DATED:     1st SEPTEMBER, 2026
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
                      Order:-
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.03
22:05:41 +0530


                      1.    Heard Mr. Sarthak Diwan, the learned Counsel for the

                      Petitioner.

                      2.    The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 11 th

                      June, 2026 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Mumbai, on

                      an application (Exhibit 53) preferred by the Petitioner-insurer in

                      MACP No. 1416/2012, whereby the application preferred by the

                      Petitioner to call the the record from the Court of JMFC seized

                      with the criminal case in relation to the accident in question,

                      especially the CCTV footages collected by the police.

                      3.    Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – claimants have instituted the

                      claim application seeking compensation in respect of the death

                      of Mrs. Shobha Pradip Kharat, the wife of Respondent No. 1 and


                                                     1/6
                                                40-WP10261-2026.DOC

mother of Respondent No. 2, in a vehicular accident occurred on

23rd     February,   2022   involving   the   vehicle   which   was

purportedly insured with the Petitioner(O2).

4.     The Petitioner filed written statement and denied the

involvement of the vehicle, which was           insured with the

Petitioner.

5.     The Petitioner thereafter took out an application seeking a

direction to call the record from the JMFC Court, wherein the

criminal prosecution for the commission of the alleged offences

in relation to the very same accident is pending. It was

contended that, in the investigation papers it has been inter alia

contended that the police identified the vehicle involved in the

accident, which was insured with the Petitioner, by examining

CCTV footages. It was, therefore, necessary to call the record

from the Court of JMFC, especially the CCTV footages.

6.     The application was resisted by the Respondent Nos. 1 and

2 - claimants.

7.     By the impugned order, the learned Member rejected the

application observing, inter alia, that the insurer had not taken

any effort to examine the Investigating Officer. The application

was vague and did not disclose necessary particulars or details.

Moreover, the Tribunal was supposed to conduct a summary


                               2/6
                                                40-WP10261-2026.DOC

inquiry, and the direction to produce the record of the JMFC

Court would defeat the very purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (“MV Act, 1988”).

8.   Mr.   Diwan,   the   learned    counsel   for   the   Petitioner,

submitted that the involvement of the vehicle which was insured

with the Petitioner in the accident in which the deceased met

death, could be established by placing on record the CCTV

footages. Thus, the Petitioner could not have been deprived of

the opportunity to adduce the best evidence. Attention of the

Court was invited to statements in the charge-sheet that the

CCTV footages were collected and produced before the learned

Magistrate. Thus, no harm would be caused to the Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 if the Court calls the record in the criminal case

pending before the JMFC.

9.   The submission appears attractive at the first blush.

However, if the submission is considered in light of the object of

the MV Act, 1988, and the nature of the proceedings before the

Tribunal, it cannot be countenanced. The Tribunal is required to

follow such summary procedure as it thinks appropriate to

determine compensation. The Tribunal is not supposed to

adjudicate the dispute as if it was an adversarial litigation.

Neither the strict rules of pleading nor evidence are applicable


                               3/6
                                                 40-WP10261-2026.DOC

to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal simply

determines the statutory compensation on account of death or

injury in a vehicular accident.

10.   A useful reference can be made to the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and Others vs.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others1, wherein it

was enunciated that in a claim petition filed under Section 166

of the MV Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount

of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has

taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor

vehicle. A holistic view of the matter has to be taken by the

Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular

vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done

by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on

the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the

standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt can not be applied

while considering the petition seeking compensation on account

of death or injury in a road traffic accident.

11.   In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs.

Shila Datta and ors.2 while considering the nature of claim

petition under the MV Act, 1988, a three-Judge Bench of the


1     (2009) 13 SCC 530.
2     (2011) 10 SCC 509.
                                  4/6
                                                    40-WP10261-2026.DOC

Supreme Court has culled down the following propositions:

      “10. …..
      (ii)  The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the
      claimant is required to make an application in a form
      prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where
      the proceedings are suo moto initiated by the Tribunal.
      …..
      (v)   Though the tribunal adjudicates on a claim and
      determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an
      adversarial litigation.
      (vi)  The Tribunal is required to follow such summary
      procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons
      possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to
      inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry.
      ……”


12.   The decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunita and Others

vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 3 and ICICI

Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahu and Others 4

reiterate the aforesaid well-recognized position in law in regard

to the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by the Tribunal, the

standard of proof and the approach of the Tribunal in the

matter of determining the compensation.

13.   If viewed through the prism of the aforesaid well-settled

position in law, no infirmity can be found with the impugned

order. The scope of the petition before the Tribunal cannot be

permitted to be expanded by seeking production of the record of

the proceedings before the Magistrate before whom the criminal



3     (2020) 13 SCC 486.
4     (2011) 10 SCC 509.
                                  5/6
                                               40-WP10261-2026.DOC

prosecution in respect of the death or injury caused in a

vehicular accident is sub-judice. The learned Member was right

in holding that, the very object of the provisions contained in

MV Act, 1988, would be defeated if such a prayer is

countenanced.

14.   Resultantly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

15.   Hence, the following order:

                          :ORDER:

      The petition stands dismissed.




                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               6/6