IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4247 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔ ========================================================== HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SARFARAJBHAI SULEMANBHAI KHOKHAR & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 08/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.  This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment   and   award   dated   02.03.2023   passed   by   the   Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Savarkundla in Motor Accident Claim Petition being MACP No.114 of 2020 (Old MACP No.162 of 2018). 2. Head learned advocates for the respective parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that “On 03.08.2018 at about 4:30   a.m.,   when   he   was   returning   from   Porbandar   to Savarkundla in Maruti Eeco Car No. GJ-14-AK-4164 and had reached the Amreli–Kunkavav Road, a heavy vehicle coming from the   opposite   direction   with   full   lights   on,   in   a   manner endangering human life, caused the driver of the said Maruti p. 2 Eeco Car, i.e. opponent No. 1, to lose control of the vehicle, as a result of which it dashed against a tree beside the road and caused the accident. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the original claimant–respondent No. 3 was travelling in the Maruti Eeco Car and that the said car was being used for hire and reward, which fact is admitted and undisputed and clearly emerges from the police   papers. It   was   therefore   submitted   that   the   learned Tribunal ought to have considered the defence of the Insurance Company and ought to have passed an order exonerating the Insurance Company on account of fundamental breach of the insurance   policy. From   the   oral   evidence   and   documents   on record, it appears that the claimant was travelling as a fare- paying passenger in the car. At the least, the Tribunal ought to have passed an order of ‘pay and recover’ and fastened liability upon the owner of the vehicle. Learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaysukhlal Manganlal Doshi, 2013 (93) GLR 2283,   and submitted that the contents of the FIR, which was relied upon by the   claimant,   are   very   clear   and   the   circumstances   reflected therein cannot be doubted, and were required to be considered by the  Tribunal  to  decide  the  controversy  as  to  whether  the claimant was travelling in the car by paying fare. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and at least an order of pay and recover be passed. 5. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and p. 3 upon perusal of the record, it is seen that the principal defence of the Insurance Company is that on the date of the accident the claimant   was   travelling   in   the   Eeco   Car   as   a   fare-paying passenger   and  that   the  vehicle  was   being   used   for   hire   and reward,   constituting   a   fundamental   breach   of   the   insurance policy. It was therefore contended that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner. 6. On perusal of the record, it appears that opponent No. 3 examined witness-Pulkit Narendrakumar Singhvi at Exhibit-71 in order to establish breach of the policy conditions, relying upon police statements produced at Exhibits 63 and 64 to contend that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward. However, except these   police  statements,  no independent  evidence   was produced before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the claimant denied that he was travelling by paying fare or that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward. 7. So   far   as   the   police   statements   of   Imran   Makwana   at Exhibit-65   and   the   statement   produced   at   Exhibit-66   are concerned,   neither   the   authors   of   those   statements   were examined before the Tribunal nor were the contents of those statements   proved   in   accordance   with   law. The   Insurance Company   also   failed   to   confront   the   claimant   with   those statements. 8. It is well settled that statements made before the police are not substantive evidence and, in view of Section 25 of the Indian p. 4 Evidence Act, they are not admissible unless duly proved. Mere production of such statements without examining the makers thereof does not amount to proof of their contents. 9. Further, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chamundeshwari Devi, (2021) 18 SCC 516, when the contents of the FIR run contrary   to   the   evidence   adduced   before   the   Tribunal,   the evidence  led  before   the  Tribunal   must   prevail. Therefore,  the reliance placed  by the appellant on the FIR alone  cannot be accepted. 10. In the  light  of  the above,  the  decision  of this  Court  in Jaysukhlal Manganlal Doshi (supra)  would  not come   to the assistance of the appellant in the facts of the present case. 11. In   view   of   the   above   discussion,   this   Court   is   of   the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of as having become infructuous. Sd/- (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI