IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4879 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus MAKANBHAI DAHYABHAI NAKUM & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4 NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 20/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Morbi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.29 of 2018. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2017, at about 9:30 a.m., the minor deceased, Vijay, was proceeding to a flour mill for grinding grains, riding his bicycle at a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When he reached Panchasar p. 2 Square near the Kandala Bypass, at that time, a Dumper bearing registration No. GJ-02-VV-753, driven by opponent No.1, came in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed, endangering human life and without following traffic rules and regulations, and suddenly took a left turn. As a result, the Dumper dashed against the bicycle of the minor deceased Vijaybhai, and thus the impugned accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Dumper. In the said accident, the minor deceased Vijaybhai sustained fatal head injuries and, due to the severity of such injuries, he succumbed to the same on the spot. 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 dumper was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The charge-sheet produced at Exhibit 33 clearly states that the driver of the Dumper 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, the appeal may be allowed. 5. Mr. Nishit A Bhalodi, 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 p. 3 on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, no 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 properly appreciated the evidence in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C., AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwar(i) Devi v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, along with the evidence produced on record. The present appeal has been filed on the grounds of liability, negligence, and coverage of the insurance policy. However, the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is not in dispute. 7. The main contention of the appellant–insurance company is that, on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. the Dumper, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. To prove the aforesaid defence before the learned Tribunal, no witness was examined by the insurance company. Merely making averments in the written statement filed at Exhibit-22 cannot be treated as proof, as pleadings by themselves do not constitute evidence. The insurance company has thus failed to prove its defence or to examine any witness in support thereof. 8. Hence, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the liability upon the insurance company, more p. 4 particularly when the Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons in paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment. So far as the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant, relying upon the charge-sheet papers produced at Exhibit-33, is concerned, it is needless to say that mere production of a charge-sheet does not constitute cogent evidence to substantiate such a defence. The Tribunal is required to consider only the evidence laid before it and, on appreciation of such evidence, to fix the liability. 9. As per the settled principles of law, the insurance company is required to prove its statutory defence by producing cogent and convincing documentary or oral evidence. In the present case, neither any RTO Officer nor any of the opponents, namely the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle, has been examined by the insurance company. Mere production of police papers cannot be treated as proof. It is well settled that a charge- sheet or police papers, by themselves, do not establish that, on the date of the accident, opponent No.1 was not holding a valid or effective driving licence. Any evidence produced before the Tribunal must 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 it has been 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 p. 5 166 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.” 10. Since no cogent evidence has been produced before the learned Tribunal to substantiate the defence raised by the insurance company, and merely the charge-sheet papers have been produced, it cannot be held that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, there is no evidence on the basis of which the insurance company can be exonerated from its liability. Even otherwise, the claimants are third parties, and it is the statutory duty of the insurance company to satisfy the award in favour of third parties under Section 150 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and award. 11. 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. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. p. 6 12. 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. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI