Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramchanra Laxman Shinde (Deleted) and Anr.

¶1

14-FA-1907-2024 -Judgment (C).doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1907 OF 2024

¶6

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Address : 4^th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, (Orig. Off. Western Express Highway, Next to Virwami Respondent Indu. Estate, Goregaon E, Mumbai – 400 053 … No.2.) versus 1 Ramchandra Laxman Shinde Aged – 59 Years, Father of the deceased … Deleted 1-A Mr. Suhas Ramchandra Shinde Age - 28 Years, Son of claimant No.1 2 Mrs. Sharda Ramchanadra Shinde Age- 51 years, Mother of the deceased R/o. B-3 Best Chawl, R.C.Marg, Opp. Navjeevan Society, Kokan Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai - 400074 3 Smt. Rajasri Rajendra Thakur 200/B Ghot Alo, Near Central School, Jashkar, Uran, Raigad – 400 707 …. Respondents

¶7

Mrs. Kalpana Trivedi, Advocate for the Appellant. Mrs. Varsha Chavan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A and 2.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶9

DATE : 10^th DECEMBER, 2025.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

This appeal filed under Section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 12.04.2022 passed in

¶12

1/3

¶13

14-FA-1907-2024 -Judgment (C).doc

¶14

S.S.Kilaje

¶15

M.A.C.P.No. 1046 of 2018 on the ground that the Tribunal has committed error in not accepting the negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the motorcycle.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is initial burden upon the claimants to prove the factum of the accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle which in this case has not been done by the claimants. It is submitted that on the basis of police papers, it can be said that the deceased has also contributed in the occurrence of the accident.

¶17

This contention is denied by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 /claimants by submitting that there is chargesheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and the same has not been taken exception to by him. It is her submission that the initial burden is discharged by the claimants and for want of any evidence on the part of the insurer and the owner of the vehicle in question, the onus shifted upon them is not discharged.

¶18

The claimants are required to prove on probability the occurrence of the accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the eye witness is not examined, the claimants have placed on record police papers which indicates that the report came to be lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle so also

¶19

2/3

¶20

14-FA-1907-2024 -Judgment (C).doc

¶21

S.S.Kilaje

¶22

on conclusion of the investigation chargesheet is filed. There is nothing to indicate that the said act of the police was challenged by the driver. Thus the claimants are successful in discharging the initial burden of proving the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in question in occurrence of the accident. The onus shifted upon the other side to prove otherwise and there is no evidence led to hold so. Even perusal from the chargesheet it cannot be said that no negligence can be attributed to the deceased. Hence appeal sans merits.

¶23