The insurance company must prove any defenses it raises regarding liability; failure to present specific evidence for claims of driver being under alcohol influence does not absolve liability for compensation.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

[1.0] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–original opponent No.3 – The New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), at Deodar, District Banaskantha (for short referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.21 of 2023 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short referred to as “MV Act”) whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein – original claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.56,81,160/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

[2.0] The brief facts of the present claim petition are that the accident took place on 26.11.2023, when Hiralben (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle No.GJ-01-LU-7832 being driven by her relative namely Hiren Parmar and while they were going from Shahpur to Bopal on the said motorcycle being driven at moderate speed on the correct side of the road and on reaching near Shivranjani Cross Roads, Satellite Road, Hirenbhai Parmar stopped the motorcycle on red signal and at that time, original opponent No.1 i.e. driver of Luxury Bus No.NL-01-B-2196 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) came from behind driving the luxury bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the stationary motorcycle on which the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider and due to impact, the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries on her head and face and died on the spot. Pursuant thereto, an FIR came to be filed against the driver namely Gambhirsinh Ishwarsinh Sisodiya of offending luxury bus for the offence under Sections 177 , 184 and 185 of the MV Act and section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The original claimants preferred the captioned MACP claiming compensation of Rs.62,25,000/- and the learned Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that once the charge-sheet is filed and driver of offending vehicle was in drunken condition and under the influence of alcohol, there was a fundamental breach of policy condition and therefore, insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award and in such circumstances, learned Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the insurance company with the liability and in the alternative, learned Tribunal ought to have passed an order of ‘Pay and Recover’. He has further submitted that charge-sheet (Exh.29) clearly reveals that driver of the offending vehicle is charged with section 185 of the MV Act read with Section 66 (1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act which demonstrates that driver of offending vehicle was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and therefore, he has requested to admit the appeal.

[4.0] As the appellant – original opponent No.3 has not challanged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of quantum of compensation or negligence or on any other ground but challenged the award only on the sole contention that the driver of offending vehicle was under the influence of alcohol at the time of driving the offending vehicle. As no any other ground is raised qua quantum and negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and even otherwise, as the insurance policy was in effect and coverage of insurance is also not in dispute, present appeal is considered in narrow compass.

[5.0] Having heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant, a pertinent query was posed to the learned advocate for the appellant as to what kind of defence was raised before the learned Tribunal to prove the contention that the driver of offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle under the influence of alcohol, he has fairly admitted that no specific defence has