TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited vs Vishal Vinod Lakde & Ors.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.896/2021.

It is noted by this court that the Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur namely, R.S. Salgaonkar in various matters, while deciding the Claim Petition, has done the cut, copy and paste exercise and delivered the judgment. On this count, this court has already remanded back the matters to the Claim Tribunal, but whatever the matters now coming before this court, it is noticed that the same procedure adopted by the Member, while deciding the Claim Petition. The present case is also one of the example of cut, copy and paste as well as non application of mind while deciding the Claim Petition.

The appellant has pointed out from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has framed the issues which reads as under :

One of the issues which was recorded, whether the respondent no.2 i.e. Insurance Company proved the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.? The finding is recorded – ‘No’. The stand of appellant before Tribunal was that driver of offending trailer did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle at the time of accident. He was possessing LMV driving licence. But while discussing this issue about the breach of policy, he has recorded the findings in the impugned judgment that insurance company has raised a defence that the driver of offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle at the time of accident, however, in para 20 of the judgment, he recorded the finding that to avoid liability, the insurer must also prove that the breach was wilful or that owner failed to take reasonable care. Then in para 21, the findings are recorded that even if the driver was technically unlicensed or unskilled, he was not driving the vehicle when the accident occurred. According to the Presiding Officer, the trailer was stationary on the road due to mechanical failure and the driver was not inside the driver’s cabin and, therefore, lack of valid driving licence has no casual connection with the accident. The accident occurred due to negligent parking of the vehicle without safety measures and not due to the act of driving, therefore, insurance company cannot evade liability and consequently, the principle of pay and recover will not apply. The view expressed by learned Tribunal is completely misapplying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Swaran Singh and others, reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297.

In the proceeding before the MACT, admittedly the present appellant-insurance company was respondent no.2 was impleaded in the claim petition. The driver of the vehicle was not impleaded as a party in the proceeding and specific objection was also raised in claim petition of non-joining of necessary party, but in para 16 of the judgment, it is recorded that the vehicle driven by respondent no.2 Vivek Babulal Dhakad and negligence is clearly established. As such, from the findings which are recorded in the present matter, it is clear that same are without applying the mind and also without verifying the record. So also in respect of the income of deceased, the clear evidence is available on record that deceased was doing private service and through evidence of PW-2, same was established on record. But contrary to evidence available on record on the basis of conjecture by treating deceased as a skilled labourer considered his gross salary of Rs.22,397/- per month. So also the findings in respect of future prospects, multiplier, periodical increase in quantum of funeral expenses, amount of consortium and on other heads, the findings are recorded contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

In the circumstances, it is clear that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the Claim Petition, did not apply his judicial mind and in a very illegal manner, decided the Claim Petition. This court in earlier judgments while setting aside the judgment of this Presiding Officer has recorded that the Presiding Officer is found to be committing the same mistake in various judgments and same should be improved. But it seems that in most of the judgment of this Presiding Officer, the manner of deciding the claim petition is identical.

In the background of the findings recorded in the present judgment this court has no other option than to remand back the matter to the Claim Tribunal.

It is pointed out that the evidence is already recorded by both the parties before the Tribunal. Only the Tribunal has to again heard the matter and decide the same on the basis of availability of the evidence as well as as per the law laid down by this court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in respect of entitlement of compensation and the legal objection raised by Appellant-Insurance Company in the matter. In view of this, the following order is passed :

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.