Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed HDFC Ergo General Insurance challenge to a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award and directed it to pay litigation costs of Rs 2 lakhs to the accident victim, while permitting withdrawal of the amount deposited in court and declining any further stay. The dispute arose from a road accident on November 18, 2014, in which a speeding car hit a two-wheeler rider, then aged 53 and employed as an Air India cabin crew member, resulting in 100% permanent disability. The Court held that a factual finding cannot be assailed through a writ of certiorari merely by alleging that the evidence was inadequate or insufficient to sustain it.

Also Read: Reserved Category Candidate Scoring Higher Than General Category Cut-Off Must Be Placed In Open Post; Supreme Court

A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries and permanent disability suffered. The insurer contested the claim, disputing negligence, alleging contributory negligence, raising objections regarding non-joinder of parties, and questioning the validity of the driving licence of the offending vehicle’s driver.

During the proceedings, the claimant examined seven witnesses and produced documentary evidence including police records, medical records, and the disability certificate. A medical witness proved the disability certificate, and no material contradiction was elicited during cross-examination.

The Tribunal framed issues on the occurrence of the accident, negligence, contributory negligence, entitlement to compensation, and liability. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held the driver of the offending vehicle negligent and awarded compensation with interest. The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, limited to the findings on negligence.

The Court examined the challenge raised by the insurer with reference to the findings on negligence recorded by the Tribunal. The Court observed that “the evidence of the applicant on the point of negligence is supported by the police papers i.e. the FIR, charge-sheet and other police papers.” It recorded that “the evidence of the applicant on the point of negligence… has not been shaken in his cross-examination.”

The Court stated that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and “the Tribunal is not bound by the pleadings of the parties in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.” It further observed that the Tribunal is required to determine compensation that appears to be “just” and is empowered to take a holistic view of the material placed on record.

Addressing the argument regarding contradiction in the claimant’s statement as to the manner of impact, the Court recorded that “some inconsistency or contradiction in the statement of a witness shall not attain materiality unless it shakes the very foundation of the judgment.” It observed that such contradiction “shall not wipe out the other material portions of the evidence tendered by the victim-applicant.”

The Court stated that findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It observed that “it is not every mistake committed by a Court or Tribunal which may lay a foundation for challenging the judgment by filing a First Appeal.”

Referring to settled principles, the Court recorded that a finding of fact can be interfered with only in limited circumstances and “the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point cannot be agitated.” The Court observed that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and no ground was made out for interference with the findings on negligence.

Also Read: 'Meant To Strike Terror': Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Vet Accused In Amravati Pharmacist Murder

The Court directed that “First Appeal No.1763 of 2025 is dismissed. By way of litigation cost, the appellant-Insurance Company shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent no.1-victim in addition to the decretal amount as per the judgment dated 4th March 2025. The amount deposited in the Court by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the victim-applicant or any other person authorized by him.”

“At this stage, a prayer for granting a stay by further four weeks has been made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. This request is declined primarily for the reason that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In view of the above, pending Interim Application Nos.11383 of 2025 and 13587 of 2025 are disposed of as infructuous.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant (Insurance Company): Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Avachat and Mr. Siddhant Deshpande, Advocates

For the Claimant: Mr. Yogesh Pande with Mr. Himanshu Jha, Advocates

Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Adil Lutfi Peters
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AS:2492-DB
Case Number: First Appeal No.1763 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Gautam A. Ankhad