Sayyed 15-FA.1212.2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1212 OF 2019 Ilaben Vasantbhai Patel ...Appellant Versus Shakaruben wd/o Kalubhai Sukkarbhai & Ors. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Jeetendra Ranawat i/by Mr. Sudhakar G. Lakhani for the Appellant. Mr. Sanskar Marathe (through VC) for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Amol Gatne for Respondent No.5. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATE : 17 JUNE 2026 P.C.: 1. By consent, taken up for hearing. 2. This appeal is filed by the original opponent no.2-vehicle owner challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa (Tribunal) dated 7 October 2016, whereby the vehicle owner and the driver have been held jointly and severally liable to compensate the original claimants alongwith interest. 3. The submission of the vehicle owner is that the insurance policy was not brought on record by any of the party. He further submitted that since there was a valid policy in existence on the day of the accident, the Tribunal should have made insurance company also liable. He further submitted that the evidence relied upon by the Tribunal with regard to permit is erroneous. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is perverse. He further submitted that the Tribunal did not give any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and closed the evidence within one day. 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AS:24501 Sayyed 15-FA.1212.2019.doc 4. Heard Mr. Ranawat, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Marathe, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Gatne, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 5. From the order, it is clear that the vehicle owner was represented by an advocate. If the vehicle owner had any grievance with respect to the procedure adopted by the Tribunal for denying cross- examination of any of the witness, then they should have approached the Court immediately. There is nothing on record to show that the advocate for opponent no.2 was expressly denied any opportunity for cross- examining any witness. But on the contrary, the document shows that the advocate for respondent no.2 was not present, when the evidence was being led. Therefore, on these facts, the approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. If at all, the vehicle owner has any grievance against the person whom he had engaged, the remedy lies somewhere else and not in these proceedings. 6. The Tribunal in paragraph 14 has given detailed reasons as to why the “pay and recover” order is not being passed. Merely because, the policy is in existence it does not mean that the vehicle owner should not comply with the terms and conditions of the policy and can plead that even if there is any violation, the insurance company should be made liable. The Tribunal in the said paragraph has come to a finding that there has been breach of terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable. These findings of fact have not been rebutted by any material before me nor this findings can be treated as perverse. Therefore, no fault can be found in the Tribunal’s order in not accepting the plea for a pay and recover order. 7. With respect to whether the deceased was negligent or not, the Tribunal in paragraph 9 has exhaustively dealt with the factual position 2 of 3 Sayyed 15-FA.1212.2019.doc and evidence on record and has given a finding that the driver of the vehicle had every opportunity to see the pedestrian and, therefore, the accident could have been avoided. Even these findings of facts have not been rebutted. Therefore, the pedestrian deceased cannot be said to be negligent based on the facts recorded in paragraph 9 of the Tribunal. 8. It is also important to note that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not examined, nor did he give any evidence. Similarly, the vehicle owner also did not lead any evidence. If the driver, who was the best person to lead evidence in support of the submission of the vehicle owner was examined then the submission made by the vehicle owner could have been considered. If the best person fails to lead any evidence, then he cannot be permitted to contend that there is no negligence on the part of the driver or the vehicle owner and that the negligence, if any, is of the pedestrian or in the alternative, the insurance company should be called upon to pay. 9. In my view, the order of the Tribunal is well reasoned based on unrebuttable facts and in the absence of any evidence led by the vehicle owner or the driver of the offending vehicle, no fault can be found in the impugned order. 10. The original claimants are entitled to the decretal amount. 11. Statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to be transferred to the concerned Tribunal and the parties would be at liberty to make an application for refund of the same. The Tribunal to make the payment of the decretal amount, if not made, to the original claimants within twelve weeks from today. 12. Appeal is dismissed. [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] 3 of 3 Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/06/2026 11:51:53