HMK 06. IA-6417-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 17666 OF 2018 The Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Satpalsingh Rajput- Manager Legal & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Ashalata Aravind Ingale & Ors. ...Respondents ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6417 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 17666 OF 2018 Ashalata Aravind Ingale & Anr. ...Applicants/Appellants Versus The Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Satpalsingh Rajput- Manager Legal & Anr. ...Respondents __________________________________________________________________ Mr. Vasant N. More a/w. Mr. Saif Kazmi for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by KMC Legal Venture for the Respondent. __________________________________________________________________ CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATED : 02nd SEPTEMBER 2026 1 of 4 HMK 06. IA-6417-2026.doc P. C. : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehta for the Appellant and learned Advocate Mr. More for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Original Claimants. 2. The deceased was travelling in a tempo on 10th August, 2011 from Village Kamothe, District Raigad to Makali. It was about 09.15 pm when the tempo driver came by Village Nibi, Taluka Roha, he lost control and dashed to the tree. The deceased has sustained severe injuries and he was admitted to the hospital. He scummed injuries. He was a gratuitous passenger in a tempo. The vehicle was insured with the Shriram General Insurance Company-present Appellant. Whereas, the owner of the tempo is one Mr. Vikas Patil-original Opponent No.1. 3. On this background, the claimants have filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaon, District Raigad (Tribunal), which was contested only by the insured. 4. The averments in the Petition filed before the Tribunal are denied. Additionally, it was contended that driver of the tempo was not holding valid and effective driving license. Claimants Ashalata entered into witness box and relied upon the documents, whereas, Insurance Company examined one Mr. Vishal Nawle. There is First Information Report (FIR) registered against the driver under Section 279, 304A, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 181, 3(1)/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These Sections of the Motor 2 of 4 HMK 06. IA-6417-2026.doc Vehicles Act, 1988 suggest that he was not possessing a valid license at the time of accident. During the arguments, Mr. Mehta made following submissions :- a) The driver Maula Ashin Chandgude not holding a driving license is duly proved on the basis of a copy of the First Information Report (FIR), which is relied upon by the claimants themselves. That is how the insured has committed a breach of the policy by allowing the driver to drive the vehicle who is not possessing a valid license. b) The deceased was a gratuitous passenger and it cannot be considered as a third party. 5. Mr. More has supported the judgment for two reasons. Firstly, merely filing a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) mentioning the relevant Sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not sufficient. It has to be proved by examining the witness. Secondly, there is already a pay and recovery order, and as such, there is no requirement of any interference. 6. The learned Tribunal has rejected the ground of the breach of the policy for not holding license. In paragraph 19, the learned Tribunal observed “merely filing of the charge sheet is not sufficient. If there is judgment on conviction, it can be considered”. Additionally, it is observed that “the driver Maula Ashin Chandgude or an authorized person from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) was not examined in 3 of 4 HMK 06. IA-6417-2026.doc paragraph no. 15”. In the Petition, the learned Tribunal has observed that the deceased Ashalata was a gratuitous passenger. 7. Even though, such findings are there, the Tribunal has given benefit of not holding the Appellant liable, but only directed the Appellant to pay that amount and then recover it from the insured. These directions are issued on the basis of the observations in the case of Manura Khatun & Ors. vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors.1. Considering the observations therein, I do not find that the the Tribunal has committed any error in coming to the said conclusion. 8. The interest of the Insurance Company is already protected by passing pay and recovery order, so no interference is required. 9. Appeal is dismissed. 10. Consequently, Interim Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. 11. Statutory deposit along with interest be transferred to the Tribunal. [ S. M. MODAK, J. ] 1 AIR 2017 SC 1204 4 of 4