SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs RADHABEN GOVABHAI DESAI (RABARI) (DELETED)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
Reserved On : 16/10/2026
Pronounced On : 23/10/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5650 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5650 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
RADHABEN GOVABHAI DESAI (RABARI) (DELETED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 9
MR. ANSHUL R SHAH(10413) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 8
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 7
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed this appeal
under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act challenging judgment
and order dated 31.08.2019 passed by learned MACT, Patan in
MACP No.156 of 2015, by which learned Tribunal has assessed
total compensation of Rs.37,00,420/- with interest at 9% p.a.
from the date of till filing claim petition till realization and
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
directed all the opponents jointly and severally to pay amount of
compensation with rider that if opponent no.3 (SBI General
Insurance Company) deposits part of decreetal amount, it shall
be entitled to recover the said amount from opponent no.2 or
legal heirs of opponent no.2.
2. The succinct facts of the case are that the deceased, Babubhai
Govabhai Desai, succumbed to fatal injuries sustained in a
vehicular accident that occurred on 09.03.2015. On the fateful
day, the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on motorcycle
bearing registration number GJ-24-E-1746, ridden by
Nizambhai, which was owned by Opponent No. 4 and insured by
Opponent No. 5. While the motorcycle was proceeding on the
correct side of the road at a moderate and controlled speed,
Opponent No. 1 rashly and negligently drove a car—owned by
Opponent No. 2 and insured by Opponent No. 3—from the wrong
side of the road at high speed, violently dashing against the
motorcycle. Consequently, the deceased was thrown onto the
road and sustained grievous injuries. He was initially rushed to
Patan Janata Hospital for emergency medical treatment and
subsequently shifted to Lion Hospital, Mehsana, where he
remained hospitalized as an indoor patient but could not survive
and lost his breath on 14.03.2015.
3. In the background of aforesaid facts, claimant being heirs
and legal representative of the deceased Babubhai, filed the
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for
getting total compensation of Rs.65 lakhs with interest and cost
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
jointly and severally from the opponents, inter alia on the
pleading that at the time of the road accident, deceased was 49
years old. He was serving as a government teacher in
government school at village Kotia; his monthly salary was
Rs.35,346/-. Besides, serving as a teacher, deceased was
earning from agricultural produce and animal husbandry as
well to make his earning Rs.20,000/- more per month. Thus, in
all, it is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.57,000/- per
month. Claimants claim that deceased was sole resource of
surviving and on his death, family is ruined the livelihood of the
claimants.
3.1. Upon above pleading claimants are claiming compensation
as stated supra .
4. The written statement of opponent no.1, 3 and 5 were filed
after being served, vide Exh. 14, 86 and 58 respectively setting
up the case of total denial. Apart from setting up the case of
regular defense, the opponent no.3 - SBI General Insurance
Company Limited raised the defense of fake and fabricated
policy; further it claimed that policy produced by the claimant
does not belong to car and not issued by the SBI General
Insurance Company Ltd. Other defense raised is that car driver
was not holding valid and effective driving license at the date of
the accident.
5. The learned Tribunal has fixed the issues at Exh.18 and
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
permitted parties to lead their evidence. After appreciating the
evidence on record, the learned Tribunal granted aforesaid
compensation to the claimants, reserving right of SBI General
Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation, if
any paid, from opponent no.2 or legal heirs of the opponent no.2.
6. Being aggrieved, SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. has
preferred the appeal.
7. Another insurance company i.e. Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Company Limited has also filed the appeal challenging
the self-same judgment vide First Appeal No.663 of 2020.
However, by order dated 12.10.2026, proceedings of First Appeal
No.663 of 2020 has been separated or de-tagged from the
present appeal on the ground that in that matter, the issue
involved is in regards to “Act only policy”, which is large before
the Supreme Court for consideration. The issue of inter-se
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is issue of
composite negligence for the claimants as deceased was a pillion
rider.
8. Heard learned advocates for respective parties.
9. Learned advocate Ms. Pathak, appearing on behalf of the
appellant-Insurance Company, vehemently contended that the
learned Tribunal has committed a serious and manifest error of
law and fact in ignoring that the insurance policy concerning the
offending car is a fabricated and fake policy. Drawing attention
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
to the oral testimony of the company's officer, Mohitsinh Hasuji
Rana, examined at Exhibit 78, she submitted that the said
witness has on oath deposed that their office thoroughly
investigated the matter and scrutinized the entire records,
revealing that car bearing registration number MH-01-CA-6881
was never insured by SBI General Insurance Company, nor was
any liability of the car owner, Mr. Iqbal Ibrahim Malpara,
indemnified at any point in time. She further submitted that the
official records of SBI General Insurance Company Limited
establish that no premium was ever received by the appellant
toward underwriting the risk of the said vehicle. It was pointed
out that the copy of the policy relied upon by the claimants is
exhibited at Exh. 66, bearing policy number
0000000004854523, whereas the actual policy produced by the
Insurance Company at Exh.80 bearing same policy number was
issued in the name of Mr. Samuel Vasanth Chellaiah as a “long-
term home insurance policy”. Thus, she submitted that the
Insurance Company has successfully discharged its burden of
proof to establish that the document produced by the claimants
is a fake policy. Moreover, comparison of the policy number at
Exh.66 with Exh.80 unhastingly demonstrates that the
document pertains to a long-term home policy and not motor
vehicle insurance policy covering the risk of the car in question.
9.1. Finding fault with impugned judgment and award, learned
advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak has submitted that before the learned
Tribunal the insurance company has successfully established its
defense of policy being a fake, yet learned Tribunal has wrongly
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
marshelled the liability upon the insurance company to pay the
compensation and to recover the same from owner of the vehicle.
9.2. Learned advocate Ms.Pathak also submitted that at the
time of accident there was no existing or surviving contractual
relationship between Mr.Iqbal Malpara – insured and appellant –
insurance company. Thus insurance company cannot be held
liable to indemnify risk of owner of offending vehicle. It is also
submitted that this Hon’ble Court on 04.12.2019 has admitted
the appeal and granted stay considering peculiar facts and
evidence and held that appellant is not required to deposit the
awarded amount. It is submitted that claimants have not
challenged the said order before Hon’ble Apex Court. It is
submitted that no liberty is given to claimants to file application
for disbursement even though they have filed application for
disbursement just to harass the insurance company.
9.3. Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak in support of her
submission would rely upon the judgment of High Court for
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh being C.M.No.5542-CII
of 2009, C.M.A.No.5543-CII of 2009 and FAO No.1180 of
2009 dated 05.03.2009 between Davinder Pal Singh v/s.
Lakhwinder Singh and others , and submitted that High Court
has held that if a policy is proven to be a forged and fabricated
one, insurance company should not be held liable to pay
compensation. She also refers to judgment of this Court in case
of Anitaben and other v/s. Abdulhakim Allarkhan Shaikh
(1996) 1 ACC 497] .
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
9.4. Lastly, it was submitted by learned advocate Ms.Pathak
that since SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. has not received
any premium to cover the risk of car on the date of the accident,
and therefore, insurance company cannot be saddled with
liability to indemnify the risk of the owner. Even no order of pay
and recover can be passed. Finding the fault with the learned
tribunal's impugned judgment and order, learned advocate Ms.
Kirti Pathak therefore submitted to allow this appeal and
exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay the
compensation.
10. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. K.K. Thakkar, appearing
on behalf of the claimants, while drawing reference to the
deposition of the Insurance Company's officer at Exhibit 78,
submitted that the witness who entered the witness box lacked
the competence to depose on behalf of the corporate or registered
office situated at Andheri East, Mumbai. He further submitted
that no official from the actual branch that issued the policy
(Exh.66 or Exh.80) was examined as a witness. He additionally
contended that although the Insurance Company alleged that a
criminal complaint had been lodged regarding the fabricated
insurance policy, apart from producing a mere communication
addressed to a senior police officer at Vagdod Police Station,
Gujarat, the company failed to place on record any material
establishing that a FIR or police complaint was ever registered
against either the claimants or the owner of the offending
vehicle.
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
10.1. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar would further submit that
the interest of insurance company is saved as insurance
company is permitted to recover the amount of compensation
from the owner of vehicle by executing the impugned judgment
and order. Thus, the claimants being third party, in larger
interest, learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned
judgment and order. He relied upon the judgment of this Court
in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v/s.
Jayeshbhai Bhagubhai Patel, First Appeal No.4114 of 2009
with First Appeal No.4115 of 2009 and judgment of the
Bombay High Court in case of HDFC Ergo General Insurance
Company Limited v/s. Smt. Nisha Milind Kamble and Ors. In
First Appeal No.1221 of 2023 .
10.2. Mainly upon above submissions, he submitted to dismiss
the appeal.
11. Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, appearing for Iffco
Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, submits that said
insurance company has also filed separate appeal. It is de-
tagged from the present appeal on the ground that in that
matter, the issue involved is in regards to “Act only policy” which
is at large before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for consideration.
Therefore, he is not making any submission in this appeal filed
by SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
12. I have also heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
respondent no.6.
13. Having heard learned advocate for both the side and
considering the impugned judgment and award as well as
evidence placed on record, at the outset, let refer the finding of
learned Tribunal dealing with the issue, in impugned judgment,
which is raised by the insurance company in the appeal. Para 23
reads as under :-
“23. The learned advocate for the opponent No.3, i.e.
insurance company of the car, has contended that the
insurance policy of the car is a fake policy and it was not
issued by the insurance company. In this regard, Legal
Officer of the insurance company Mr.Mohitsinh Hasuji Rana
deposed vide Ex.78 and stated that the said policy is fake
and fabricated and not issued by his insurance company.
Police complaint filed in this regard has been produced vide
Ex.79. It is claimed by the opponent that the policy issued by
the insurance company is a “Long Term Home Policy” on the
name of “Mr.Samuel Vasanth Chelliah” and not a vehicle
policy. The said policy is produced vide Ex.80. So, it is
argued that the opponent No.3 should be exonerated from
the liability to pay compensation.
But, during the crossexamination of the witness, he
admitted that he did not file complaint against the driver or
owner of the car and also against his own employee. It is
also stated that receipt number of the premium of the policy
is always mentioned in the policy, which is not mentioned in
the policy produced by him vide Ex.80. Whereas, receipt
number of the premium of the policy is mentioned in the
policy produced by the applicants vide Ex.66. Moreover,
police complaint was also filed after two years from the date
of accident by the opponent insurance company, that is too
late. In such circumstances, at this juncture, this Tribunal
finds no substance in the argument of the learned advocate
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
for the opponent insurance company as to said policy being
fake and fabricated. However, the applicants have produced
the judgment of Silli Man Subba and others V. Man Bahadur
Subba and another reported in 2015 ACJ 2575, wherein the
Hon'ble Sikkim High Court held as under:
Motor insurance Fake Policy Liability of insurance
companyInsurance company disputes its liability on
the ground that policy issued by its official was fake
and insurance company could not be held responsible
for the act of its employee in issuing the fake policy
and that it was not aware of such omission and
commissionOwner of vehicle produced policy believing
it to be genuine one Another policy issued by the
insurance company was produced and it was difficult
to identify the fake and the genuine No case of the
insurance company that owner had deliberately
produced fake certificate or he had colluded with its
employee to obtain fake insurance policy Whether
insurance company can be absolved from liability to
third party for the action of its employee for whom it is
vicariously liable Held: No; further, the ground raised
by the insurance company is not available to it under
section 149(2).
However, if in future it is established that, the said policy is
fake or fabricated, the insurance company, i.e. opponent
No.3, will be at liberty to recover the amount of
compensation from the owner of the vehicle, i.e. opponent
No.2.”
14. It is noticeable that in a proceeding of MACP No.156 of
2015, the SBI General Insurance Company Limited was served
in beginning of the claim proceedings but it decided to file the
written statement on 19.06.2019 (Exh.86). Apt to note that
claimant has entered into witness box on 11.04.2018 (Ex.24). At
that time there was no written statement or defence raised by
the SBI General Insurance Company and without any defence or
written statement, learned advocate Mr. J.P. Jani appearing for
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
SBI General Insurance Company cross examined the claimants.
It implies that insurance company has cross examined claimant
without having defence on record at that time. On going through
the cross examination of claiamnt, it appears that the insurance
company has not raised any defence of filing fake or fabricated
policy of the erring vehicle – car. Not a single question is asked
to the claimant in this regards.
15. Another witness PW- 2 entered into witness box at Exh.40
on 14.11.2018. Learned advocate appearing for SBI General
Insurance Company did not cross examine this witness.
16. After the claimant tendered the closing purshis, Mr.
Mohitsinh Husji Rana, an officer of SBI General Insurance
Company Limited, filed his affidavit-in-chief (Exh. 78) on
15.05.2019 but without filing a written statement. Along with his
affidavit-in-chief, he placed on record documents Exh. 79 and
Exh. 80. He was cross-examined by the learned advocate
appearing for the claimant. At the end of claim petition
proceedings i.e. after cross-examining the claimant and leading
oral and documentary evidence on behalf of SBI General
Insurance Company, a written statement was filed at Exh. 86 on
19.06.2019.
17. It is in this factual background this Court has to
appreciate the submissions of the learned advocate, Ms.Kirti
Pathak, regarding the defense of a fake and fabricated policy.
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
18. In a motor accident claim petition under Section 166 of the
MV Act, 1988, where the insurer disputes the policy relied upon
by the vehicle owner or claimant as fake, forged, fabricated, or
not issued by the insurance company, the principal question is
what evidence the insurer must produce to establish that
defence. The issue must be distinguished from the case where a
genuine policy was issued but subsequently cancelled on the
ground of premium check was dishonored or where the policy
does not cover the particular vehicle or accident. The central
evidentiary principle in a case of raising a defence of fake, forged,
and fabricated policy is that a mere denial by the insurance
company that it has not issued the policy should not
automatically be treated as proof of forgery. The insurer must
establish its defence through legally admissible and sufficiently
reliable evidence assessed in the context of the entire record.
Ordinarily, the insurer ought to have produce the evidence of
authorized officer of policy issuing branch of insurance company
to explain whether the policy was issued by the company and
the basis of denial; original policy issuance registers or electronic
evidence and electronic records to establish whether the policy
number, vehicle particulars, and date correspond with the
company's records; premium ledgers, receipts, and payment
records to examine whether the premium was received and
credited for the alleged policy; cover note or policy number series
records to investigate whether the number was issued,
duplicated, or misused; and investigation reports along with
supporting material to establish the factual basis of the
allegations of fabrication. The investigation report alone may not
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
prove every disputed fact; and lastly, police complaints, FIRs,
and investigation material, if available, should be produced to
corroborate the allegations and demonstrate the insurer's
response to suspected fraud. However, the registration of an FIR
is not by itself conclusive proof that the policy is fake. These are
potential modes of proof, serving as an illustrative rather than a
statutory checklist.
19. Thus, where the insurance company seeks to avoid liability
on the ground that the policy of insurance produced before the
Tribunal is forged or fabricated, such defence must be examined
on the basis of cogent and legally admissible evidence. The mere
assertion of an authorized officer that the policy was not issued
by the company cannot, without an adequate evidentiary
foundation, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of fabrication.
The relevant policy issuance records, premium accounts,
particulars of the policy number, and the testimony of a
competent witness having knowledge of the relevant records may
be material in determining the genuineness of a document. The
duty of the insurer to act diligently upon discovering an alleged
fake policy, including reporting the matter to the appropriate
authorities has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan (2026
INSC 339).
20. The relevant policy issuance records premium accounts
particulars of policy number and testimony of a competent
witness having knowledge of relevant record may be material in
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
determining the genuineness of document. The duty of the
insurer to act diligently upon discovering an alleged fake policy,
including reporting the matter to the authorities of the has been
emphasized by the Supreme Court in K. Saravanan (supra) ,
whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Para 5 as under :-
“5….. Once it comes to its knowledge, and it is satisfied, that
policy is forged / fabricated and cannot be acted upon to
fasten liability upon it, it is incumbent upon the insurance
company to inform the appropriate authorities namely, the
police,………”
21. Coming back to the facts of the case and particularly
taking note of the sequence of proceedings as aforestated, it is
important to note that the alleged fake or fabricated policy, as
well as the genuine policy relied upon by the Insurance
Company, was issued by the office of SBI General Insurance
Company Limited situated at Andheri (East), Mumbai. However,
the officer who entered the witness box at Exh.78 to depose on
behalf of the Insurance Company is serving at the Ahmedabad
branch office. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that 'we'
have investigated the matter and 'we' checked our entire records;
however, the identity of the persons referred to as 'we' remains
unexplained. He has been thoroughly cross-examined by the
learned advocate appearing for the claimants. The entire cross-
examination reads as under (it is in Gujarati language, for better
understanding, it is translated in English) :-
“Cross-Examination : Ld. Advocate Mr. R. M. Solanki
for the Applicant
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
(1) It is true that I have no personal knowledge regarding
the occurrence of the accident. I received notice of this
compensation application on 07/07/2015. It is true that I
st
sent the complaint at Exhibit-79 by post on 21 November
2017. It is true that no reason for making this complaint late
has been mentioned in the complaint at Exhibit-79. It is true
that the complaint at Exhibit-79 is not made against
Opponent No. 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the
car, respectively. It is true that the complaint at Exhibit-79 is
not made against any agent or officer of my insurance
company. It is true that after 2012, all our insurance policies
are computer-generated. On these computer-generated
policies, our officer's digital signature is affixed. I have seen
the record of this case. Upon looking at both the R.C. Book at
Exhibit-65 and the insurance policy produced by the
applicant at Exhibit-66, I state that the engine number,
chassis number, vehicle’s owner, and vehicle registration
number are all identical. It is true that the policy produced
by the applicant at Exhibit-66 is computer-generated and
contains a digital signature. The witness states that he
cannot tell whose or which officer's signature it is. I have
been working with SBI General Insurance for the past nine
months. It is true that, therefore, I cannot state which
officer's digital signature was affixed on the policy in 2015.
Looking at the policy at Exhibit-66, I state that SBI General
printed on 5th March 2015 at 11:21 AM is issued. It is not
true that, therefore, the officer who was on duty at SBI
General printed on 5th March 2015 at 11:21 AM issued it. It
is true that there is a premium acceptance receipt number on
the policy. The policy produced at Exhibit-80 is a Long Term
Home Policy, and no premium acceptance receipt number is
mentioned in it. It is true that in the policy produced by the
applicant at Exhibit-66, the premium acceptance receipt
number 1746993 is present. Before giving my deposition
today, I had not read the reply to this application filed by
Opponent No. 1. Regarding the alleged fake policy at Exhibit-
66, no notice was issued to Iqbal Ibrahim Malpara, who is
the vehicle owner, nor was any information provided to the
RTO.
(2) I do not know whether an F.I.R. was registered on the
complaint at Exhibit-79 or what action was taken thereon. It
did not happened that any departmental action was taken
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
against our officer regarding the alleged fake policy. It is not
true that the policy at Exhibit-66 was generated by our
insurance company and belongs to our insurance company.
It is not true that I am giving false deposition to save the
insurance company from paying the compensation amount.”
22. A perusal of the cross-examination reveals that the officer
who entered the witness box for and on behalf of SBI General
Insurance Company failed to substantiate the defense of a fake
and fabricated policy. Except the fact that no criminal complaint
was lodged against Opponents No. 1 and 2 viz. the car driver and
owner, no FIR or police complaint was ever filed against any
official of SBI General Insurance Company allegedly involved in
issuing the policy (Exh.66). He has admitted that he was serving
in the SBI General Insurance Company Limited for last last nine
month only and thus, he has admitted that he cannot say that
who has signed the policy which is issued in the year 2015. He
further accepted that, generally, a receipt number is printed on a
policy leaf, yet the policy relied upon by the Insurance Company
lacks any such receipt number. It further transpires that while
SBI General Insurance Company Limited follows the practice of
digitally signing insurance policies, Exh.80—the policy relied
upon by the company bears a manual signature. Notably, none
of the authorized signatories who signed Exh. 79 and 80 stepped
into the witness box, and the Insurance Company failed to offer
any explanation for withholding these material witnesses. It was
additionally admitted that the Insurance Company did not
inform the Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding the
fraudulent or fake policy.
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
23. On marshalling the evidence on record, it appears that the
Insurance Company hopelessly failed to prove that the policy at
Exh.66 was fabricated and fake. By merely producing another
policy (Exh.80) bearing the same policy number as Exh.66,
which was signed manually despite the practice of digital
signing, the Insurance Company could not establish that the
policy at Exh.66 was wholly fabricated or fake. Furthermore, the
Insurance Company failed to produce other relevant records,
such as premium accounts, policy particulars, and the
testimony of a competent witness, to substantiate its claim. It
also did not act diligently upon discovering that the alleged
policy was fake, as no follow-up action was taken to verify
whether an FIR was registered pursuant to the letter at Exh.79.
This casual and lackadaisical approach on the part of the
Insurance Company remain unsubstantiate and insufficient to
prove that the policy involved in this matter is fake and
fabricated.
24. Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jayeshbhai Bhagubhai
Patel (supra) , in identical fact situation, held as under:
“5. I have considered the rival submission of both the parties
and also perused the relevant record of the Tribunal and
also gone through the findings given by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal has specifically discussed in Para No. 13 of the
judgment about the aspect of liability of the Insurance
Company and the Tribunal has rightly found that claimant
being third party in the present proceeding and since the
dispute about the fake policy can be between the owner of
the vehicle and Insurance Company and rights of 3rd party
claimant cannot be affected by that and more particularly
and the Tribunal has considered the judgments reported in
1997 (2) T.A.C. 693 V. Ravi vs. New India Insurance
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
Company and another judgment 2003 (2) T.A.C. 407
(Calcutta) in the case of United India Insurance Company vs.
Ms. Meena Mitra and another and has found that dispute
regarding the fake Policy is not proved in the present case
by convicing evidence and the liability of the Insurance
Company cannot be denied about payment of the claim
amount to the claimants, who are 3rd party to such dispute
about policy. Moreover, I found from the deposition of the
witness of the Insurance Company-Urmilaben at Exhibit 72
that Insurance Company has failed to file any complaint or
proceedings against the owner of the vehicle or any other
person regarding such alleged fake Policy though the
Insurance Company has knowledge about the fake Policy in
the year 2003 and not only that Insurance Policy has neither
entered into any notice correspondence with the owner of the
vehicle regarding such Policy being fake nor any legal
proceeding is found to be initiated against the owner of the
vehicle or any such other person by the Insurance Company
regarding the fake Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company
cannot shrug away its liability to pay the compensation
pursuant to the Insurance Company. It is the cardinal
principle while deciding such compensation cases that hyper
technical approach should not be adopted by the Courts
while deciding claims in Motor Accident Claim Petition.”
25. Moreover, what appears that the learned Tribunal, by
passing an order of 'pay and recover', saved the interest of the
insurance company. Thus, the order is found to be legal and
justified. Apt to note that the insurance company did not file
written statement up to the last stage of the proceedings, raised
meritless contentions before the learned Tribunal, and cross-
examined the witness without having any details. As observed
hereinabove, not a single question was asked to the claimant
regarding whether he has filed a fake or fabricated policy. The
present appeal filed by the insurance company in a casual
manner is deprecated and is accordingly, deplored.
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026
C/FA/5650/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240763662019)
26. In view of above and for the foregoing reasons, the appeal
is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, first
appeal is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands
vacated. Connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.
27. Registry to place Record and proceedings along with First
Appeal No.663 of 2020.
28. Before parting with the order, let me observe that this
Court has not dealt with any issue raised in First Appeal No.663
of 2020 and left to be decided during the hearing of the said first
appeal.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 16:42:18 IST 2026