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 2026:BHC-AUG:38659 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//