Dismissed¶37

Ashish Jalan v. Mrs. Durga Das and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 May 2026CRP(IO)/152/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court 2026 revision CRP(IO)/152/2026 Ashish Jalan v. Durga Das & New India Assurance; MAC Case 361/2019 MACT No.2 Kamrup (Metro); insurer permitted to adduce defence evidence despite ex parte order dated 03.06.2025 not recalled; S.151 CPC recall petition dismissed; valid driving licence mandate under Motor Vehicles Act 1988; procedure a handmaid of justice; petition dismissed; orders restricted to unique facts, not a precedent; no finding on licence validity.

What did the court decide?

Even at a belated stage after taking adjournments, it would be within the power of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to consider the insurer's prayer to adduce evidence, because there is a mandate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the driver to hold a valid licence and driving without a licence is a breach of legal duty under that Act.

Ashish Jalan Vs Mrs. Durga Das and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether, without setting aside or recalling the ex parte order dated 03.06.2025, the learned Tribunal had jurisdiction to allow respondent No. 2 insurer to adduce defence evidence. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Procedure of law is only a handmaid of justice; in cases where the owner and driver of the vehicle do not possess a valid and effective driving licence, as in this case, it would be within the jurisdiction of the learned Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal to pass the impugned order.

¶33

Key takeaways

The impugned orders dated 30.01.2026 and 07.03.2026 were passed under the unique facts of the case, and they as well as this order shall be restricted to the unique facts of this case and shall not be a precedent for any other case.obiter¶36
Nothing in this order is a finding on the validity of the petitioner's driving licence; the learned Tribunal shall decide the claim petition without being influenced by any observation made in this order.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kalyan Rai Surana, J.), CRP(IO)/152/2026, order dated 13.05.2026: Revision by the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle against orders dated 30.01.2026 and 07.03.2026 of the Member, MACT No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 361/2019 (arising from a fatal accident of 07.08.2018), whereby the insurer (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) — earlier proceeded ex parte by order dated 03.06.2025 after repeated adjournments and non-appearance — was permitted, through petition No. 386/2026 filed without any prayer to set aside the ex parte order, to adduce defence evidence, and the owner's S.151 CPC recall application (petition No. 900/2026) was dismissed. Held: procedure of law is a handmaid of justice; where the projected case is that the owner-cum-driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence — a breach of legal duty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — the Tribunal could consider the insurer's belated prayer to lead evidence even after the ex parte stage. Petition dismissed; impugned orders and this order restricted to the unique facts and declared non-precedential; no finding recorded on the validity of the petitioner's driving licence, and the Tribunal to decide the claim uninfluenced by these observations.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010079692026

2026:GAU-AS:6630

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/152/2026

¶6

ASHISH JALAN

¶7

S/O LATE DR. BALA KRISHNA JALAN, R/O CENTRAL PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, FANCY BAZAR, M.S. ROAD, P.S.- PANABAZAR, P.O.- PANBAZAR, DISTKAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781001

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

MRS. DURGA DAS AND ANR

¶10

W/O LATE BIJAY DAS @ BIJOY DAS, R/O BIRUBARI JAYANAGAR, JAYAPATH, HOUSE NO. 46, P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR, P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR, GUWAHATI-781016, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶11

2:THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BHANGAGARH G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005 KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SHARMA, MR. M HASSAN

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 13.05.2026

¶18

Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

The petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BF-6364. The said vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident which had occurred on 07.08.2018 leading to the death of the rider of a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-R-1247 on 08.08.2018. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, which was registered as MAC Case No. 361/2019, and is pending before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, which is the insurer of the said vehicle, did not lead any evidence and sought for adjournment on 21.11.2023, 04.03.2024, 14.06.2024, and 20.07.2024 and despite dates being fixed on 10.09.2024, 30.10.2024, 04.02.2025 and 30.04.2025. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, by its order dated 03.06.2025, held that the respondent No. 2 insurer was absent without steps, and the case proceeded ex parte against the insurer and the case was fixed for argument on 14.07.2025.

¶22

The respondent No. 2 insurer did not advance any argument after 14.07.2025, on dates which were fixed on 10.09.2025, 15.10.2025, 15.11.2025, and 06.12.2025, and on 30.01.2026. However, the respondent No. 2 filed petition No. 386/2026 before the learned Tribunal to allow it to adduce their defence evidence. There was no prayer made for setting aside or recalling of the order dated 03.06.2025 to proceed ex parte against the respondent No. 2. The learned Tribunal allowed the said petition No. 386/2026 on the same date, i.e., 30.01.2026.

¶23

Accordingly, the petitioner had filed petition No. 900/2026 dated

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

16.02.2026 under Section 151 CPC, praying for the recall of the order dated 30.01.2026. However, the said application was dismissed and the case was fixed for cross-examination of DW-2 as the learned Tribunal had permitted the respondent No. 2 to produce its witness even before adjudication of the said petition No. 900/2026.

¶26

Accordingly, on the ground that the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal was perverse and not in accordance with the established procedure of practice and that without the recalling of the order to proceed ex parte, the respondent No. 2 was allowed to adduce evidence during the pendency of petition No. 900/2026, the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 30.01.2026 and 07.03.2026, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in connection with MAC Case No. 361/2019.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully submitted that as the order of proceeding ex parte against the respondent No. 2 was not set aside, the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to allow the prayer made by the respondent No. 2 to adduce evidence. It is further submitted that although a lot of adjournments were taken by the respondent No. 2, and ultimately it failed to appear and contest the proceedings, and therefore, if the impugned orders are not set aside, it will lay down a new procedure of practice, which would permit anyone to default in appearance and in adducing evidence and thereafter get the ex parte orders vacated without assigning any good cause.

¶28

In this case, the petitioner is the owner of the offending vehicle and, therefore, even if the proceedings of the learned Tribunal are pending since 2019, the petitioner would not be the person affected by the delay in the

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

adjudication of the said MAC Case No. 361/2019.

¶31

From the documents appended to this revision application, it emerges that the investigators of the respondent No. 2 found out that at the time of the accident, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the petitioner was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, which was projected to be a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the petition was filed on the ground that while passing the final award, liberty be granted to the respondent No. 2 to recover the awarded amount from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.

¶32

In the considered opinion of the Court, as it is the projected case of the respondent No. 2 that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the petitioner, was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, even at a belated stage after taking adjournments, it would be within the power of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to consider the prayer of the insurer to allow them to adduce evidence. This is because there is a mandate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the driver of the vehicle to have a valid licence, and therefore, the driving of a motor vehicle without a licence is a breach of the legal duty cast under the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶33

Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the procedure of law is only a handmaid of justice, and in cases where the owner and driver of the vehicle do not possess a valid and effective driving licence, as in this case, it would be within the jurisdiction of the learned Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal to pass the impugned order.

¶34

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, while

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

the Court is inclined not to interfere with the impugned order, it is made clear that the impugned orders dated 30.01.2026 and 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, are passed under the unique facts of the said case, and the said order as well as this order passed in this application today, shall be restricted to the unique facts of this case and shall not be a precedent for any other case.

¶37

Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at the instance of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, against whom the allegation is that he did not hold a valid driving licence. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶38

Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as if there is any finding by this Court on the validity of the driving licence of the petitioner, and therefore, the learned Tribunal shall decide the claim petition without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 30.01.2026 allowing respondent No. 2 insurer's petition No. 386/2026 to adduce defence evidence, and order dated 07.03.2026 dismissing the petitioner's petition No. 900/2026 (S. 151 CPC) seeking recall of the order dated 30.01.2026, in MAC Case No. 361/2019¶26
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati · 30.01.2026 and 07.03.2026
Prior proceeding
Road traffic accident on 07.08.2018 involving vehicle No. AS-01-BF-6364 led to death of the motorcycle rider (No. AS-01-R-1247) on 08.08.2018¶20
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, registered as MAC Case No. 361/2019, pending before MACT No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati¶20
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 2 insurer led no evidence and took adjournments on 21.11.2023, 04.03.2024, 14.06.2024, 20.07.2024, and on dates fixed up to 30.04.2025¶21
Prior proceeding
By order dated 03.06.2025 the Tribunal held the insurer absent without steps, proceeded ex parte against it, and fixed the case for argument on 14.07.2025¶21
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 2 filed petition No. 386/2026 to adduce defence evidence without any prayer to set aside or recall the ex parte order dated 03.06.2025¶22
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal allowed petition No. 386/2026 on 30.01.2026, the same date it was filed¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed petition No. 900/2026 dated 16.02.2026 under Section 151 CPC praying recall of the order dated 30.01.2026; it was dismissed and the case was fixed for cross-examination of DW-2, the Tribunal having permitted the insurer's witness even before adjudication of that petition¶25
Prior proceeding
Insurer's investigators found the petitioner (owner-cum-driver) was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, projected as a breach of policy conditions; recovery of the awarded amount from the owner-cum-driver was sought¶31

Ashish Jalan v. Mrs. Durga Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Jalan v. Mrs. Durga Das and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dibrugarh Hanumanbux Surajmal Kanoi Commerce College and Anr. Vs Tarun Chandra Gogoi and 14 Ors. (C)

Dibrugarh Hanumanbux Surajmal Kanoi Commerce College and Anr. Vs Nilima Gogoi and 14 Ors.

Shantana (Chakraborty) Bhattacharjee Vs Rajarshi Chakraborty

Horen Gogoi Vs Court of Competent Authority, Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (Iggl) and 4 Ors.

Smti Dorsana Bora Vs Bishwajit Das

Sanjay Jain Vs Shree Vishwanath Marwari Databya Aushadhalaya and 21 Ors.