Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaily Nishit Tiwari and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2024FA/923/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident insurance appeal, the Insurance Company contended that the deceased driver held only a learner's licence, arguing he was inexperienced and should be exempted from liability. The High Court observed that the tribunal correctly found the vehicle carried an 'L' board and a licensed passenger, noting that a learner is not deemed inexperienced per Supreme Court precedent, thus di

What did the court decide?

The first appeal is dismissed. Claimants permitted to withdraw deposited amount and statutory amount transmitted to the Tribunal.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shaily Nishit… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904-FA-923-2022.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 923 OF 2022

¶5

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANUSHANKARSADHUDUM SHANKARSADHUDUMDate:2024.02.15 15:23:44 +0530

¶6

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.)
Having its Office at Heritage House)
Ground Floor, 6 Ramabai Ambedkar)
Road, Tadiwala Road, Near Hotel)
Panchratna and Gandhi Bhavan )
Pune – 411 001)
(Insurer Bolero Car Bearing)
Registration No. MH-12-NP-3338)
Policy No. 1701262311018023)
Valid from 04.11.2016 to 03.11.2017)
….Appellant
 Versus
1. Smt. Shaily Nishit Tiwari)
 Age: 35 years, Occu: Housewife)
2. Master Kavya Tiwari)
 Age- 06, Occu- Student)
Applicant No.1 for herself and on)
behalf of minor Applicant No.2 as a )
Natural Guardian Mother)
3. Mrs. Alok Tiwari)
 Age: 65 years, Occu-Nil)
4. Mr. Laxminarayan Tiwari)
 Age – 75 years, Occu- Nil)
 All R/at Flat No. C-601, 6th floor)
 Sunrise Apartment, Papde Wasti)
 Phursungi, Pune-412308)

¶7

….Orig. Applicants

¶8

1/4

¶9

904-FA-923-2022.doc

¶10

Shantanu Dhudum

¶11

5. Mr. vinayak Mahesh Tribhuvane)
 Age: 24 years, Occu- Electrician)
 R/at A2/401, Namdev Rukhari Baug)
 Saswad Road, Bhekrai Nagar,)
 Phursungi Behind H.P. Petrol Pump)
 Pune 412308)
 (Driver Bolero Car bearing )
 Registration No. MH-12-NP-3338)
6. Mrs. Savita Arun Tilekar)
 Age: Adult, Occu- Not Known)
 R/at Hissa No. 409/215, Trimurti Nagar)
 Pune Saswad Road, Phursungi)
 Pune:- 412308)
 (Owner of Bolero Car bearing)
 Registration No. MH-12-NP-3338))
….Respondents
(Res. Nos. 1 to 4 are Org.
Applicant & Res. No.5
and 6
are Orig. Opp. Party.)

¶12

Ms. Shalini Shankar, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶13

Mr. Nikhilesh Pote a/w Tanmay Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4.

¶14

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶15

DATE : 2^nd FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶16

Oral Judgment. :

¶17

1.The issue involved in this appeal is, at the time of
accident, driver of offending vehicle was holding learner’s

¶18

2/4

¶19

904-FA-923-2022.doc

¶20

Shantanu Dhudum

¶21

licence.

¶22

2.It is contention of learned counsel for Appellant/Insurance
Company that at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle
was holding learner’s licence but, this fact is not considered by the
Tribunal . Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶23

3.It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that
it has come in the evidence that though, deceased was holding
learner’s licence a “L” board was affixed in the car, which deceased
was driving and the person having permanent licence had seated
beside the deceased. The Tribunal has passed appropriate order.
Hence requested to reject the Appeal.

¶24

4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and

¶25

order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune (for short
“the Tribunal”).

¶26

5.While dealing with the issue of learner’s licence, the
Tribunal has observed that driver of offending vehicle was deceased,
who was holding learner’s licence and his friend Sanket Sawant who

¶27

3/4

¶28

904-FA-923-2022.doc

¶29

Shantanu Dhudum

¶30

was holding permanent driving licence was sitting beside him.
Moreover “L” board was affixed in the offending vehicle. On that
ground, the Tribunal has held that Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation. I do not find infirmity in it. As per view of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Swaran Singh 2004 AIR (SC) 1531 the person holding learner’s
licence cannot be termed as inexperienced.

¶31

6. In view of above, I pass following order.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

ii. The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited

¶35

amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶36

iii. The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal
along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at
liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.

¶37

7. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶38

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶39

4/4

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaily Nishit Tiwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaily Nishit Tiwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Thane Vs Mehrul Sirajul Miraj and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Deepika Jitendra Vangari through Her Father Jitendra Gangaram Vangari and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Laya Jitendra Vangari

Vivekanand Rantidev Chudgar Vs Dimple Chudgar and Another

Shri Nitin Vasantrao Wagh Vs Shri Himmatsingh S/O Sardar Bhagatsingh and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sarjerao Ganpati Chougule