THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGERversusALKA GAJANAN GADEKAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38659


                                                    1                      904-wp-1976-2022.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 1976 OF 2022

                  The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager
                                               VERSUS
                                 Alka Gajanan Gadekar And Others
                                                   ...
               Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshpande Dhananjay P. (through V.C.)
                             AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.K. Shirse
                  Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shrikrashna B Solanke & Mr.
                                             Bhushan Patil
                                                   ...
                                               CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                             DATED      : AUGUST 21, 2026
              P.C.:

              1.        Present petition is filed in order to challenge award dated

              24.11.2021 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat in Pre Litigation

              Application Dispute No.43 of 2020. The said proceeding was initiated

              by respondent no.1 in order to claim compensation on account of

              demise of her husband, who was an agriculturist, in a road accident.

              The claim is based on tripartite agreement of farmers insurance dated

              03.03.2018 executed between the petitioner/insurance company,

              Government of Maharashtra and M/s Jaika Insurance Brokerage Private

              Limited and Government Resolutions dated 04.12.2009, 05.12.2017,

              and 01.12.2018. The said tripartite agreement and government

              resolutions provide for a scheme for payment of compensation of

              Rs.2,00,000/- to the dependents of agriculturist in case where an

              agriculturist dies in a road accident. The husband of respondent no.1
                                       2                        904-wp-1976-2022.odt


met with a road accident on 17.10.2018 while he was riding motorcycle

bearing RTO Registration No.MH-20-MV-7016. The relevant papers

disclose that he was hit by another vehicle from the rear side. The

husband of respondent no.1 died due to injuries suffered in the road

accident. The respondent no.1 therefore claimed compensation as per

aforesaid government resolutions and tripartite agreement.

2.        The claim was opposed by the petitioner placing reliance on

clause 21 of Government Resolution, which provides that the claim for

compensation cannot be entertained in case where driver of vehicle

does not hold a valid driving license. It is not in dispute that respondent

no.1 was not holding a driving license. The claim was, however,

allowed by placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this

Court in case of Latabai wd/o. Raosaheb Deshmukh Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.10185 of 2015 decided at

Aurangabad Bench on 06.03.2019.

3.        In para 7 of the Division Bench judgment on which reliance is

placed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, it is held that the burden of

proving that the deceased was not holding a valid driving license is on

the insurance company and apart from that, even in cases where

deceased does not hold a valid driving license, the claim for

compensation cannot be denied unless it is established that the accident

had occurred due to any reason attributable to the deceased. Similar
                                      3                     904-wp-1976-2022.odt


view is taken in Writ Petition No.2420 of 2018 and connected petitions

by order dated 27.11.2018.

4.       Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, learned advocate appearing for

insurance company contends that in view of an express prohibition

under the tripartite agreement and government resolutions that claim

for compensation will not be entertained in cases where deceased

driver was not holding a valid driving license, the question of seeking

compensation under the said scheme does not arise. Learned advocate

vehemently argues that the principles governing adjudication of claim

petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act will not be attracted

while entertaining claims under the said contractual scheme. Learned

advocate distinguishes the Division Bench judgment in the case of

Latabai (Supra) by contending that in the said case there was a dispute

as to whether the license of the deceased was renewed after it had

lapsed. He contends that in the present case, admittedly the deceased

was not holding a valid driving license.

5.       Per contra, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1

supports the award. He contends that clear and explicit finding is

recorded on the basis of documentary evidence that the deceased was

hit by a motor vehicle from the rear side and was absolutely not at

fault. Learned advocate contends that legal position is well settled by

the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the case of Latabai and
                                       4                        904-wp-1976-2022.odt


several other judgments of this Court.

6.         Having heard the rival submissions, as aforesaid this Court

finds that learned Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly appreciated the

material on record to arrive at finding of fact that the deceased was not

responsible for the accident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased

was not holding a valid driving license. The government resolutions

and agreement provide that in such case, the dependents of the

deceased will not be entitled for compensation. However, the said

clause in the government resolutions and tripartite agreement has been

considered by this Court and the consistent view of this Court is that

unless the deceased is responsible for the accident or the accident

occurs due to fault of the deceased, claim for compensation cannot be

denied on the ground that the deceased was not holding a valid driving

license.

7.         In case of Latabai (Supra), the Division Bench has

categorically held that the claim could not have been rejected in the

facts of the said case where the deceased was not responsible for the

accident which had occurred solely due to mistake of the driver of the

offending vehicle. In the present case also, the deceased was not

responsible for the accident that had occurred.

8.         In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no

case for interference with the award passed by learned Permanent Lok
                                                   5                       904-wp-1976-2022.odt


             Adalat is made out. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as

             to costs.

             9.          The amount deposited by the petitioner/insurance company

             with this Court be disbursed to respondent no.1 with accrued interest,

             if any.




                                                         [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]




Mujaheed//