C/FA/1905/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1905 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Versus SANGAR AMADBHAI MUSABHAI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 9 UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 8 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 11.02.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh- Bhuj in MACP No.333 of 2016. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No.9. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.2016, the deceased, Shri Sangar Bashir Amadbhai, was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-10-K-4738 from Hajipir p. 2 C/FA/1905/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026 to Mandvi, keeping to the extreme left side of the road at a moderate speed. When he reached the place of the accident, a Bolero bearing Registration No. GJ-12-CG-8312, being driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, lost control and collided with the deceased’s motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed thereto. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the insurance company with liability, ignoring the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely the Bolero bearing Registration No. GJ-12-CG-8312, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The charge- sheet produced at Exhibit 37 clearly states that the driver of the said Bolero was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective licence, thereby violating Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal are erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, it was prayed that the insurance company be exonerated. Alternatively, the learned advocate for the insurance company submitted that at least an order of “pay and recover” be passed against the owner of the vehicle, i.e., opponent No. 2. 5. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. It was contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, no p. 3 C/FA/1905/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026 interference is called for. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in light of the decisions in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, including the affidavit of the claimant at Exhibit 28, the insurance policy at Exhibit 32, the FIR at Exhibit 33, the panchnama at Exhibit 34, the charge-sheet at Exhibit 37, the driving licence of the deceased produced at Mark 30/1, the letters addressed by the insurance company to opponent No. 2 at Exhibits 42 and 43, and the statement of opponent No. 1 recorded by the police at Exhibit 44. 7. So far as the involvement of the vehicle, its coverage, and the quantum of compensation are concerned, the same are not in dispute. The appeal has been filed only on the ground of liability; therefore, the issue involved in the appeal is required to be considered in a narrow compass. 8. The learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The insurance company has raised the defence that, on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and has relied upon the charge-sheet to contend that the driver of the Bolero was not holding a valid and effective licence to drive the said vehicle. Page 3 of 6 C/FA/1905/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026 9. It is further submitted that the insurance company addressed a letter to the owner of the Bolero vehicle calling upon him to provide particulars, including the driving licence of the driver, but he failed to do so or to produce any such particulars. Hence, the insurance company has relied upon the statement of opponent No. 1 recorded by the police, produced at Exhibit 45, wherein he has stated that he was not holding a licence on the date of the accident. 10. However, to prove the aforesaid fact, no cogent evidence has been produced on record and no witness has been examined. Mere issuance of a letter to the owner is not sufficient to avoid the liability of the insurance company. It is well settled that the party who asserts must prove. In the absence of any reliable evidence, to avoid liability the insurance company was required to prove that, on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. However, except for the charge-sheet, no evidence has been produced; no RTO officer or any other witness has been examined, nor any documentary evidence brought on record to show that the driver of the Bolero did not possess a valid licence. 11. It is needless to say that a charge-sheet by itself is not proof that, on the date of the accident, opponent No.1 was not holding a valid or effective driving licence. Whatever evidence is produced before the Tribunal has to be duly proved and properly appreciated. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jana Bai, Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512, wherein the p. 5 C/FA/1905/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026 Court has held as under: “We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.” 12. The learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon the statement of opponent No. 1 recorded by the police. It is to be noted that in his first statement recorded on 12.04.2016, opponent No. 1 stated that he was holding a driving licence to drive a motorcycle. Subsequently, in his second statement recorded on 21.04.2016, he changed his version and stated that he was driving the Bolero jeep and did not possess a driving licence at that time. However, these statements have not been proved by examining any witness. It is settled law that a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and has no evidentiary value unless duly proved in accordance with law. Mere production of such statements is not sufficient; the contents thereof must be proved by leading evidence before the Tribunal. 13. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and that the insurance company has failed to prove its defence. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The application stands dismissed accordingly. Page 5 of 6 C/FA/1905/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026 14. So far as the prayer for passing an order of “pay and recover” is concerned, in the absence of any proof of fundamental breach of the policy or violation of its conditions, no such order is required to be passed. 15. If any amount is lying deposited before this Court, the same shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI