40-WP10261-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10261 OF 2026 Bajaj General Insurance Company Ltd ...Petitioner Versus Pradip Ramchandra Kharat And Ors …Respondents Mr. Sarthak Diwan, for the Petitioner. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard Mr. Sarthak Diwan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 11th June, 2026 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Mumbai, on an application (Exhibit 53) preferred by the Petitioner-insurer in MACP No. 1416/2012, whereby the application preferred by the Petitioner to call the the record from the Court of JMFC seized with the criminal case in relation to the accident in question, especially the CCTV footages collected by the police. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – claimants have instituted the claim application seeking compensation in respect of the death of Mrs. Shobha Pradip Kharat, the wife of Respondent No. 1 and 1/6 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.03 22:05:41 +0530 40-WP10261-2026.DOC mother of Respondent No. 2, in a vehicular accident occurred on 23rd February, 2022 involving the vehicle which was purportedly insured with the Petitioner(O2). 4. The Petitioner filed written statement and denied the involvement of the vehicle, which was insured with the Petitioner. 5. The Petitioner thereafter took out an application seeking a direction to call the record from the JMFC Court, wherein the criminal prosecution for the commission of the alleged offences in relation to the very same accident is pending. It was contended that, in the investigation papers it has been inter alia contended that the police identified the vehicle involved in the accident, which was insured with the Petitioner, by examining CCTV footages. It was, therefore, necessary to call the record from the Court of JMFC, especially the CCTV footages. 6. The application was resisted by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - claimants. 7. By the impugned order, the learned Member rejected the application observing, inter alia, that the insurer had not taken any effort to examine the Investigating Officer. The application was vague and did not disclose necessary particulars or details. Moreover, the Tribunal was supposed to conduct a summary 2/6 40-WP10261-2026.DOC inquiry, and the direction to produce the record of the JMFC Court would defeat the very purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act, 1988”). 8. Mr. Diwan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the involvement of the vehicle which was insured with the Petitioner in the accident in which the deceased met death, could be established by placing on record the CCTV footages. Thus, the Petitioner could not have been deprived of the opportunity to adduce the best evidence. Attention of the Court was invited to statements in the charge-sheet that the CCTV footages were collected and produced before the learned Magistrate. Thus, no harm would be caused to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 if the Court calls the record in the criminal case pending before the JMFC. 9. The submission appears attractive at the first blush. However, if the submission is considered in light of the object of the MV Act, 1988, and the nature of the proceedings before the Tribunal, it cannot be countenanced. The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks appropriate to determine compensation. The Tribunal is not supposed to adjudicate the dispute as if it was an adversarial litigation. Neither the strict rules of pleading nor evidence are applicable 3/6 40-WP10261-2026.DOC to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal simply determines the statutory compensation on account of death or injury in a vehicular accident. 10. A useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others1, wherein it was enunciated that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the matter has to be taken by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt can not be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. 11. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shila Datta and ors.2 while considering the nature of claim petition under the MV Act, 1988, a three-Judge Bench of the 1 (2009) 13 SCC 530. 2 (2011) 10 SCC 509. 4/6 40-WP10261-2026.DOC Supreme Court has culled down the following propositions: “10. ….. (ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo moto initiated by the Tribunal. ….. (v) Though the tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. (vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry. ……” 12. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Sunita and Others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation3 and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahu and Others4 reiterate the aforesaid well-recognized position in law in regard to the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by the Tribunal, the standard of proof and the approach of the Tribunal in the matter of determining the compensation. 13. If viewed through the prism of the aforesaid well-settled position in law, no infirmity can be found with the impugned order. The scope of the petition before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to be expanded by seeking production of the record of the proceedings before the Magistrate before whom the criminal 3 (2020) 13 SCC 486. 4 (2011) 10 SCC 509. 5/6 40-WP10261-2026.DOC prosecution in respect of the death or injury caused in a vehicular accident is sub-judice. The learned Member was right in holding that, the very object of the provisions contained in MV Act, 1988, would be defeated if such a prayer is countenanced. 14. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : The petition stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6