1 fa231.2015.odt I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.231/2015 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through the Branch Manager, Akola, C/o Regional Office, M.E.C.L. Premises, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Bhawan, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. ... Appellant (Respondents Opponents on R.A.) - Versus - 1. Mahadeo Bhikaji Bhamodre, aged 50 Yrs. 2. Sau. Suman Mahadeo Bhamodre, aged 47 Yrs. Both R/o Khamgaon, Tahsil Khamgaon, District Buldhana. (Ori. Claimants/Opponent Nos.1 and 2.) Legal representatives of Respondent No.2/Suman Mahadeo Bhamodre. 2-A Mahadeo Bhikaji Bhamodre (Husband), R/o & Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldhana. 2-B Sunita Anil Satote (Daughter), R/o Shankarnagar, Pimpalgaon-Raja, Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldhana. 2-C Varsha Prakash Jaeare (Daughter), R/o Ward No.1, Shahapur, Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldhana. 2-D Renuka Mahadeo Bhamodre (Daughter), R/o Gopalnagar, near Hanuman Mandir, 2026:BHC-NAG:1309 2 fa231.2015.odt Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldhana. 2-E Gajanan Mahadeo Bhamodre (Son), R/o Gopalnagar, near Hanuman Mandir, Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldhana. 3. Abdul Naeem Abdul Matin, near Water Tank, Ansar Nagar, Amravati, Tahsil & District Amravati. 4. Navshadbaige Tameezbaige, Occupation Driver, R/o Arafaz Colony, at Parfict Kata, Walgaon Road, Amravati, District Amravati (Vehicle NO.CG-07/ZC-2252). ... Respondents ----------------- Ms. S.H. Bhatia, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ---------------- CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 16.01.2026. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 28.01.2026. JUDGMENT This is the Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khamgaon (for short ‘Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.6/2007 directing the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay jointly and severally the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 3 fa231.2015.odt 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, learned Advocate for the Claimants. Perused the record. 3. The Claimants have filed the above referred claim petition contending that on 17.08.2005, deceased Santosh Bhamodre, who was proceeding from the National Highway No.6 near Ghatpuri, Khamgaon, the Truck i.e. offending vehicle, dashed the deceased due to rash and negligent driving. Deceased succumbed to the injuries. The Claimants claimed the compensation from the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle. All the Respondents in the claim petition, filed their respective written statement. The Claimants led the evidence. The Respondents therein did not led any evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. 4. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was renewed post accident. The challenge in the Appeal is that, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the pay and recover order as the driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident and, therefore, there was breach of the insurance policy. According to the learned Advocate for the Claimants, no fault can be found with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. 5. The record shows that, though the Appellant Insurance Company in their written statement below Exh.24 in para 6 pleaded that, “…..the driver of alleged vehicle did not possess valid and 4 fa231.2015.odt effective driving licence at the time of accident and hence the claimants have not filed original and valid driving licence of the alleged vehicle in the claim petition……”, no evidence was led by the Appellant Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal to prove the said aspect. At Exh.53 there is a pursis by the learned Advocate for the Appellant Insurance Company that, the Insurance Company do not want to lead oral evidence. Though, with Exh.52 i.e. ‘list of documents’ copy of one Driving Licence and Insurance Policy are brought on record, no evidence was led to prove the said pleadings that, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident. Further the Claimants examined the original Claimant No.2 Suman below Exh.36 by filing the evidence on affidavit. There was no cross- examination of this witness by the Appellant Insurance Company. Mere pleading without proof will not be of any consequence. The learned Tribunal in para 16 of the impugned judgment and order has observed as under:- “16. In the present case, it is seen that the opponent No.1 entrusted the vehicle to opponent no.2 who was holding valid driving licence. It is not the case that the vehicle was handed over to a person who was not at all holding driving licence. Moreover, it is seen that the opponent no. 3 did not examine any witness to prove the contentions raised in the written statement. In the circumstances, the opponent No.3 definitely failed to discharge the onus upon it to prove that opponent No.1 had knowledge that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and inspite of it, he employed him. In the circumstances, taking recourse of the judgments cited by opponent No.1 and claimants, I hold 20 that the opponent No.3 being insured of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 5 fa231.2015.odt and 2, I, therefore, hold that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.” 6. In view of the above undisputed aspects of the matter, the observations made by the learned Tribunal are in consonance with the evidence available on record. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. There is no need to discuss the decision cited by the learned Advocate for the Claimants in K. Nagendra V/s. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2297 wherein the principle of pay and recover has been discussed and considered. In view of the above observations, the Appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ii) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant Insurance Company under the award in this Court, if any, if not withdrawn earlier. iii) Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned Tribunal. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) Tambaskar.