The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Jan Mohammed Amjad Hussain Shaikh And Anr
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010177662008
FA-1144-2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2008
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., }
87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. }
Insurance Certificate No.719579, }
Valid from 23/9/1996 to 22/9/1997 } ...Appellant
Digitally signed
by SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Date:
2026.11.03
18:40:34
+0530
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Versus
1. Mr.Jan Mohammed Amjad Hussain Shaikh, }
Aged about 20 Years, Residing at : C/o Garib }
Navaz Line Depot, Shop No.106, Dinbandhu }
Nagar, Sale Paint Road, Antop Hill, Wadala, }
Mumbai – 400 037. }
2. Smt.Jaibunnissa Mohammed Khan, }
Kusumbai Bhola Chawl, R/14, Sewree Cross }
Road, Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015. }
(Owner of Motor Truck No.MCY 3564). } ...Respondents
====================================================
Mr.Ramesh Cheulkar:- Advocate for Appellant Insurance
Company.
No one is present:- On behalf of the Respondents.
====================================================
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 26 OCTOBER 2026
rd
PRONOUNCED ON : 3 NOVEMBER 2026
JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Cheulkar for the Appellant
Insurance Company.
1/5
Satish Sangar
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:46:11
FA-1144-2008.doc
2. Notice on Respondent No.1 was returned because he is not
doing business at that place. It was served by pasting. Whereas, notice
on Respondent No.2 returned unserved through the bailiff remark that
he has left the premises and his whereabouts are not known. The
Respondent No.1 is the Claimant whereas, the Respondent No.2 is the
owner of the motor–truck. Considering the limited issue involved, I
have disposed of the Appeal only on hearing the learned Advocate for
the Appellant–Insurer.
th
3. The Claimant Jan Mohammed was riding a bicycle on 9 June
1997 at 3.00 p.m., and he was dashed by one truck bearing No.MCY–
3564 owned by Respondent No.2. The Claimant suffered injuries. He
filed Petition for claiming compensation on account of disability.
4. The owner did not contest the Petition. It was contested only by
the Insurer. They have denied the Insurance of truck bearing
No.MCY–3564. According to them, the vehicle covered as per the
cover note No.719579 is in fact MH–03–D–9897.
5. The Claimant has given evidence and relied upon the
documentary evidence. Whereas, the Appellant has examined their
Officer–Mrs.Avita Thomas. The documentary evidence about the
insurance relied upon by both the sides is as follows:-
2/5
Satish Sangar
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:46:11
FA-1144-2008.doc
(a) A copy of Form Compensation A.A. issued by Wadala Police
Station in Crime No.42 of 1997. The motor–truck number is
MCY–3564. The cover note number is 719579. The
rd nd
duration is 23 September 1996 to 22 September 1997.
The name of the owner is Smt.Khan Jaibunnissa. This was
relied upon by the Claimant. Whereas, the Insurer relied
upon the following documents:-
rd
(b) Letter received from RTO–Mumbai dated 3 April 2007
about the information about vehicle registration No.MH–
03–D–9897. The owner is Ashok Paykale.
6. Learned Advocate Mr.Cheulkar argued that the Claimant has not
produced copy of the policy. He has made following submissions:-
(a) In the letter by Wadala Police Station, the vehicle number
mentioned is MCY–3564 and the cover note is 719579.
Whereas, in the letter given by RTO–Mumbai, the vehicle
number is MH–03–D–9897.
(b) He also submitted that in letter given by RTO–Thane for
vehicle number MCY–3564, the name of the owner is
Laxman Manjulkar.
(c) According to him, there are two different owners for vehicle
number MCY–3564.
(d) According to him, the Company has produced the policy for
cover note number 719579 but it was issued in respect of
vehicle MH–03–D–9897 and not the offending vehicle
number MCY–3564.
3/5
Satish Sangar
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:46:11
FA-1144-2008.doc
(e) He has submitted that the witness of the Insurer has proved
this fact. But the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the
evidence. He has invited my attention to the ground Nos.13
and 14 of the Appeal memo.
7. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence. It is true that
the Claimant is having a limited access to the Insurance documents.
Generally they get copies from the Police Station. In this case, the FIR
is lodged at Wadala Police Station against the driver of vehicle number
MCY–3564. There is also reference in the spot panchnama. The
Wadala Police Station has supplied the information having cover note
number 719579. Admittedly, the policy number is not supplied.
Probably, they may not be possessing the policy. The Claimant cannot
be blamed for the same.
8. Whatever information the Insurer has collected from the RTO–
Mumbai, is in respect of MH–03–D–9897. The policy number
mentioned is 916518. This is different from the cover note mentioned
in the letter by Wadala Police Station. It is also true, the RTO–Thane
records that Laxman Manjulkar is the owner of vehicle number MCY–
3564. Probably, vehicle must have changed hands and transferred to
the new owner.
9. It is true that as per the policy documents produced by the
4/5
Satish Sangar
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:46:11
FA-1144-2008.doc
witness, the owner of the vehicle is Ashok Paykale and vehicle number
is MH–03–D–9897. So, the issue is whether these documents pertain
to cover note number 719579. Learned Advocate Shri.Cheulkar from
the record could not point out that these policy documents are in
respect of said cover note number. If it is not there, it cannot be said
that the Insurance Company has produced the policy documents in
respect of cover note number 719579. In fact, they ought to possess
that document. It can certainly be said that they have made an attempt
to show that the offending vehicle is not covered with them. They
could not prove it. The Tribunal compared the cover note produced by
the Claimant and produced by the Insurer and concluded that the first
page of cover note produced by the Insurer is not there and
accordingly, blamed the Insurer. The Tribunal gave weightage to the
vehicle information and cover note produced by the Claimant.
10. Hence, I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any wrong
in holding them responsible. No interference is warranted.
Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. Pending Applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
5/5
Satish Sangar
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 18:46:11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)