High Court of Gujarat Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Driver Swapping Defence Rejected for Lack of Evidence. Claimants awarded Rs.19,29,760/- with 9% interest under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for death of cleaner in tempo accident.

High Court: Gujarat High Court

Admin

2026-05-19 02:52:03

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2021 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Godhra, in MACP No.433/2019. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition of the original claimants (respondent Nos.3,4,6) and awarded Rs.19,29,760/- with 9% interest for the death of Rajjakkhan, a cleaner/helper in an Eicher Tempo (No.GJ-01-DZ-0411). The accident occurred on 26.06.2019 when the tempo, driven rashly and negligently by opponent No.1, dashed into a stationary truck from behind. The driver jumped out, but the deceased got stuck in the cabin and died during treatment. FIR No.52/2019 was registered at Nabipur Police Station. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.20 lakh. The Tribunal held the driver solely negligent. The insurance company appealed, arguing that there was swapping of the driver, but led no evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged breach of policy conditions. The compensation was found just and proper, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Sole Negligence of Driver - The Tribunal held the driver of Eicher Tempo solely negligent for the accident based on FIR and evidence, which was not challenged by the insurance company on merits. (Paras 3.1, 5)

B) Motor Accident Claims - Defence of Driver Swapping - Burden of Proof - The insurance company alleged swapping of driver but failed to lead any evidence. The Tribunal and High Court held that mere suspicion or allegation without proof cannot be accepted. (Paras 4, 5)

C) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Enhancement - The claimants sought enhancement but the High Court found the compensation just and proper, dismissing the appeal. (Para 6)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the insurance company can avoid liability on the ground of alleged swapping of driver without any evidence?

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged driver swapping. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was found just and proper. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Burden of proof on insurance company to establish breach of policy conditions
Swapping of driver must be proved by cogent evidence
No presumption of driver swapping without evidence

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:5791

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 665 of 2022

2026-01-28

Hasmukh D. Suthar

2026:GUJHC:5791

Ms. Masumi Nanavati, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for appellant; Mr. Nishit Bhalodi for respondent Nos.3,4,6

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Ltd

Barkatkha Yakubkha Belim & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and award in motor accident claim petition

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought to avoid liability on ground of driver swapping; claimants sought enhancement of compensation

Filing Reason

Insurance company alleged swapping of driver; claimants sought higher compensation

Previous Decisions

Tribunal partly allowed claim petition and awarded Rs.19,29,760/- with 9% interest

Issues

Whether the insurance company can avoid liability on the ground of alleged swapping of driver without any evidence? Whether the compensation awarded is just and proper?

Submissions/Arguments

Insurance company argued that there was swapping of driver and driver of offending vehicle was changed, but led no evidence. Claimants argued that the compensation was inadequate and sought enhancement.

Ratio Decidendi

The burden of proof lies on the insurance company to establish breach of policy conditions, such as driver swapping. Mere suspicion or allegation without evidence cannot be accepted. The Tribunal's finding on negligence and compensation was upheld.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Tribunal has committed an error in not believing the defence putforth by the appellant – insurance company though present is a clear case of swapping of driver and driver of offending vehicle is changed. In absence of any evidence learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the defence of the insurance company.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed under Section 166 of MV Act before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Godhra. Tribunal partly allowed claim on 31.08.2021. Insurance company filed First Appeal No.665/2022 before High Court. Claimants also sought enhancement. High Court dismissed appeal on 28.01.2026.