ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs JASHWANTSINH CHHATRASINH CHAUHAN
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1132/2014 (GJHC240403492014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1132 of 2014
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
JASHWANTSINH CHHATRASINH CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.5,1.6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 02/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present First Appeal is directed against the judgment
and award dated 7.10.2023 passed in MACP No.127 of 2003,
whereby the learned MACT, Panchmahal @ Godhara granted
compensation 6,01,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
2. According to the claimants, on 18.10.2002, deceased,
Jashvantsinh Chhatrasinh Chauhan was walking on the edge
of the road between Moti Samal Devi and Kalol and at that
time, he was hit from behind by a truck bearing registration
number GJ-17-T-8790 driven by its driver at excessive and
uncontrollable speed. The deceased sustained serious and
fatal injuries and lost his life during treatment at SSG
Hospital, Vadodara.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 16:40:51 IST 2026
C/FA/1132/2014 (GJHC240403492014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
2.1 A telephonic vardhi was made by Head Constable
Rameshbhai Ranchhodbhai of Kalol Police Station, pursuant to
which a complaint was registered, and a case was thereafter
registered against the truck driver. Thereafter chargesheet
came to be filed.
2.2 Opponent Nos. 1 and 2, through the advocate on record,
filed written statement at Exh. 24, admitting the accident,
stating that while Opponent No. 1 was passing near Ambika
Society, Kalol Godhra Highway, a man was hit by the truck.
2.3 The learned Tribunal ignoring the defence raised by the
insurance company as to the involvement of the vehicle,
granted total compensation of Rs. 6,01,000/- with 9% interest
from the date of petition till realization.
2.4 Hence, present First Appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the
appellant – insurance company. Though served, none appears
for the respondents .
4. With reference to the statement of an eyewitness and
the report of an investigation carried out by the investigating
officer , it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the
driver had been planted in the road accident, and that the
vehicle was not even involved in the accident, so that it was a
case of a fictitious road accident. Thus, the learned Tribunal
committed serious error in disbelieving the contention of the
insurance company.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 16:40:51 IST 2026
C/FA/1132/2014 (GJHC240403492014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Dakshesh Mehta requests to allow this appeal and to quash
and set aside the impugned judgment and award.
5. What could be noticeable that copy of the FIR,
panchnama, inquest panchnama, pm report, statement of the
opponent No.1 before the investigator, investigation report
were produced at Exhs. 32, 33,29,30,66 and 67. It is observed
that that the insurance company, having raised the contention
of non-involvement of the vehicle, did not lead the evidence of
the driver to prove the facts contained in its written
statement, whereas the driver, who had filed the written
statement at Exh. 24, had accepted the fact of the accident in
the terms recorded therein. Thus, it is held that the insurance
company, not having led any evidence to discharge the burden
of disproving the involvement of the vehicle, could not raise
the contention in appeal that the vehicle was not involved.
6. Nonetheless, the FIR, charge sheet, the investigation
into the claim, the case registered against Opponent No. 1,
and the claim petition and submissions regarding involvement
of the vehicle, all carry presumptive value, and, though not
conclusive proof, constitute valid, admissible, and reliable
evidence in the absence of any rebuttal evidence.
7. At this juncture, I referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co.Ltd. Versus Rajani Sahoo, 2025 (2) SCC 599 , wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 8 to 11 as under:-
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 16:40:51 IST 2026
C/FA/1132/2014 (GJHC240403492014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
“ 8 . As regards the reliability of charge sheet and
other documents collected by the police during the
investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in
the case of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656; 2018 INSC 311
held in paragraph No.27, thus : -
“27. Another reason which weighed with the High
Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by
Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the
Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver
of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable.
Our understanding of the analysis done by the
Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven
rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it
collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading
to the accident. This can be discerned from the
evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-
sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This
Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [
Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz,
(2013) 10 SCC 646 , noted that the key of
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be
decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly not by
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it
to observe that the exposition in the judgments
already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and
rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that
the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases
by the Tribunal”. (Emphasis Supplied).
9. It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral
and documentary evidence including the FIR, final
report and such other documents prepared by the
police in connection with the accident in question.
The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that
based on the final report, the driver of the offending
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 16:40:51 IST 2026
C/FA/1132/2014 (GJHC240403492014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
truck was tried and found guilty for rash and
negligent driving. The High Court took note of such
aspects and found no illegality in the procedure
adopted by the Tribunal and consequently dismissed
the appeal.
10. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer
to a decision of this Court in Mathew Alexander v.
Mohammed Shafi & Anr., (2023) 13 SCC 510;
2023 INSC 621 this Court held thus:-
“12….A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken
into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of
an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a
particular manner need not be established by the
claimants. The claimants have to establish their case
on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
cannot be applied while considering the petition
seeking compensation on account of death or injury
in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the
observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10
SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid
judgment in Bimla Devi.”
11. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the
position that the question regarding negligence
which is essential for passing an award in a motor
vehicle accident claim should be considered based on
the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the
police records are available before the Tribunal,
taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said
that looking into such documents for the aforesaid
purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.”
8. Thus, taking holistic view of the evidence, the contention
raised by Learned advocate for the appellant being devoid of
merits deserves to be discarded.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 16:40:51 IST 2026
C/FA/1132/2014 (GJHC240403492014) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
9. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands
dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated
forthwith.
10. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest
thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure, if not paid so far.
11. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct
the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 16:40:51 IST 2026