fa113.2012.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2012 The Branch Manager The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Main Road, Wardha, Tah. & Dist. Wardha ... Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Indubai wd/o Vishwanath Katlam Aged 38 years, Occ. Household, 2. Amit s/o Vishwanath Katlam Aged 15 years, Occ. Student 3. Kiran d/o Vishwanath Katlam Aged 13 years, Occ. Student, 4. Aruna d/o Vishwanth Katlam Aged 11 years, Occ. Student, Nos.2 to 4 being minors through their natural guardian mother Indubai 5. Smt. Jamnabai wd/o Marotrao Katlam,(deleted) Aged 68 years, Occ. Household, All R/o. Kannamwar Gram, Tah. Karanja (Ghadge), Distt. Wardha. 6. Manohar s/o Nandlal Sathe Aged Major, Occ. Owner, R/o. Kannamwar Heti, Tah. Karanja (Ghadge), Distt. Wardha … Respondents Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar,, Advocate a/w Mr. P.M. Jain, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATED : 22.07.2026 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents, though served. PAGE 1 OF 7 2026:BHC-NAG:9655 fa113.2012.odt (2) The appellant – insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 20.08.2011, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and District Judge-1, Wardha in MACP No.117 of 2008. (3) By the said impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only), inclusive of the amount payable under the principle of no-fault liability, from the appellant – insurance company and respondent No.6, jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of registration of claim petition till its full realization. (4) According to Mr. Johrapurkar, on 29.02.2008, Tractor No. MH-32-A-8791, attached to Trolley No.MH-32-A-8168 and loaded with firewood dust/ash coming to Heti from Karanja. The deceased, Vishwanath, was serving as a labour on said tractor and was travelling/sitting along with some other labours in the trolley. At the relevant time, the tractor was being driven by one Sunil Waghdhare. At about 8:30 p.m., when the tractor-trolley was passing through Kannamwar Ghat on the Wardha–Heti Kuti Road, it turned turtle, resulting in the accident. In the said accident, the driver, Sunil Waghdhare, and the labourer, Vishwanath Katlam, died on the spot. PAGE 2 OF 7 fa113.2012.odt (5) The claimants, i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 5, instituted the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents, namely, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, i.e. the tractor. (6) Mr. Johrapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant– Insurance Company, submits that the learned Tribunal erred in failing to consider the specific defence raised by the appellant that the deceased driver, Sunil Waghdhare, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor at the relevant time. He further submits that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the deceased driver. According to him, despite the said defence, the learned Tribunal, instead of exonerating the appellant–Insurance Company from its liability, erroneously fastened the liability to pay compensation upon it. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly shifted the burden of proving the absence of a valid driving licence upon the appellant–Insurance Company. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. (7) After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, as stated hereinabove. PAGE 3 OF 7 fa113.2012.odt (8) The record of the present appeal, which has been made available to this Court, reveals that claimant No.1, namely, Indubai Vishwanath Katlam, the wife of the deceased Vishwanath, entered the witness box and deposed in support of the claim petition. She stated that the deceased was about 40 years of age at the time of the accident and was earning approximately Rs.100/- per day. She further deposed that she and her children were entirely dependent upon the income of the deceased and that the children were pursuing their education at the relevant time. According to her, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, Sunil Waghdhare. She also proved on record the copies of the First Information Report, Spot Panchanama, Post-mortem Report, Inquest Panchanama, Medical Certificate, and the insurance policy of the tractor in question, which were exhibited at Exhibits 37 to 43. (9) The cross-examination of the said witness discloses that no serious attempts have been made to disbelieve her evidence. Respondent No.1–owner also examined Manohar Nandlal Sathe, who was examined at Exhibit 46. He deposed that the tractor involved in the accident dated 29.02.2008 was insured with the appellant–Insurance Company, whereas the trolley was insured with the National Insurance Company. However, he categorically stated that he was not an eyewitness to the accident and, PAGE 4 OF 7 fa113.2012.odt therefore, had no personal knowledge as to whether the deceased was travelling in the trolley at the time of the accident. (10) He has also fairly admitted in his cross-examination that he is not possessing the copy of driving license of Sunil Waghdhare. He also firmly stated that he is not aware about the license details of the deceased Sunil. The appellant – insurance company also examined the witness No.1 – Mohammad Yunus, who was working as Investigator in the United India Insurance Company. He has conducted investigation as regards the validity of license of deceased Sunil, who on the basis of his enquiry with RTO, Raipur submitted report at Exhibit 51. On the basis of said report, it came to be submitted that the license in question has not been issued by the RTO, Raipur Office. However, in his cross-examination on behalf of the claimant, the said witness has clearly admitted that he had not forwarded the xerox copy of the driving license to the RTO office while claiming the particulars about the same. (11) On the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal appears to be appropriate, correct and proper. So far as the accident in question, it has been proved that the deceased Vishwanth died due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor PAGE 5 OF 7 fa113.2012.odt by its driver i.e. another deceased Sunil Waghdhare. There is also no dispute that, at the relevant point of time, the offending tractor was not insured with the appellant–Insurance Company. (12) Mr. Johrapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that there is a breach of policy as regards non-possessing the valid driving license by the driver of the deceased at the time of accident. However, the owner of the vehicle fairly stated that he had engaged Sunil Waghdhare as driver, as he was holding a driving license of tractor. The said tractor was insured with the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited. (13) However, during his cross-examination by the learned counsel for appellant – insurance company, he has deposed that he is not possessing the copy of driving license of Sunil Waghdhare. The said evidence does not confirm that the deceased Sunil Waghdhare was not holding a valid driving license, the owner may or may not be possessing the copy of driving license of his employee at the time of giving evidence before the Tribunal. Further, it is required to be seen that when the owner fairly stated that he had engaged the deceased Sunil as his driver, as he was possessing the valid driving license therefore, it was for the appellant – insurance company to disprove the PAGE 6 OF 7 fa113.2012.odt said fact by leading appropriate evidence to that effect. The appellant – insurance company except examining the investigator witness Mohommad Yunis has not examined any other witness to disprove the fact that the deceased Sunil Waghdhare was not possessing the valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the grounds raised by the appellant – insurance company, as regards, non-possessing of valid driving license is baseless and hence, rejected. (14) In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal filed by the appellant – insurance company is, therefore, dismissed. [ SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ] Prity PAGE 7 OF 7