1 17.FA-2692-2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2692 OF 2013 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS MOHASIN SHAIKH PATEL AND ANOTHER WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13374 OF 2013 IN FA/2692/2013 … Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kulkarni Sudhir V. … CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal in order to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Ex Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 258 of 2008. The Appellant and owner of the vehicle are jointly and severaly held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/-, inclusive of the amount payable under the principle of no-fault liability, together with interest. The only contention raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company is that the policy of insurance was not in force on 03.05.2008, being the date on which the Claimant/Respondent No. 1 met with the accident. In support of the said contention, the learned Advocate for the Appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the insurance policy placed on record, 2026:BHC-AUG:43838 2 17.FA-2692-2013.doc which indicates that the policy was effective from 14.01.2007 to 13.01.2008. 2. The learned Advocate for the Appellant contends that, apart from the aforesaid policy, there is no other document on record from which it can be inferred that the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company on the date of the accident. 3. After hearing the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the following point arises for my consideration: (i) Whether the Appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from the liability imposed under the impugned Award? 4. A perusal of the written statement filed by the Appellant indicates that no defence to the effect that the insurance policy was not in force on the date of the accident was taken therein. The Appellant did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal. A perusal of the cross-examination of the Claimant further indicates that even the subsistence of the insurance policy was not questioned during the course of the Claimant's cross-examination. The policy document placed on record is an unproved document. In the absence of any pleading or evidence demonstrating that the offending vehicle was not insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company on the date of the accident, this Court finds it difficult to accept the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellant. The possibility of 3 17.FA-2692-2013.doc renewal of the policy after 13.01.2008 cannot be ruled out. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellant/Insurance Company was required to establish by cogent evidence that the policy was not renewed after 13.01.2008. Alternatively, it could have challenged the Claimant's statement in his examination-in-chief that the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. Having failed to do so, the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant cannot be accepted. 6. As recorded above, the ground sought to be urged in the present appeal finds no place either in the written statement filed by the Appellant or in the cross-examination of the Claimant. In view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award. Accordingly, the First Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. The Civil Application is also disposed of. ROHIT W. JOSHI JUDGE NAJEEB..