IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 425 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================

BAJAJ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BHARUCH (FORMERLY BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.)

Versus JAYESHBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL & ORS.

============================================

Appearance:

MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant –

Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.415 of 2014.

2) Heard learned Advocates for the appellant – Insurance Company.

3) Brief facts of the case of the original claimant are that on

27.09.2014, the claimant was walking on the side of the road opposite Saidarshan Society on the way to Mandva, at that time the opponent no.1 came by driving Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-16-BF-4671, in rash and negligent manner and thereby lost control over the vehicle and knocked down claimant. As a result the claimant sustained grievous injuries in a road accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has partly allowed the petition and exonerated the appellant – Insurance Company, however, the appellant was directed to first pay the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant and then recover the same from the owner – opponent no.2 – respondent no.2 herein.

4) Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in directing Insurance Company to pay and recover, despite the clear and fundamental breach of the policy as the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. She has further submitted that the appellant has also raised issue of involvement of the vehicle as the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle. Hence, she has requested to allow the present appeal.

5) Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the main ground of the appellant is that on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is required to be exonerated from its liability. However, an insurance policy is a statutory contract entered into between the insurer and the insured for the benefit of third parties. The aforesaid ratio has also been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shamanna vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650, wherein, while considering Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has been held that the victim of a motor vehicle accident is a third party, and it is the statutory duty of the insurer to satisfy the award. The principle of “pay and recover” has been reiterated, holding that if the driver had no valid driving licence and there was a breach of policy conditions, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of “pay and recover” passed by the Tribunal. If the Insurance Company has paid any amount, the mode of recovery is also provided, and the insurer has the liberty to initiate proceedings before the executing Court concerned, if the dispute is between the insurer and the owner. In the present case, the claimant is a third party and has no concern with the inter se terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anu Bhanvara & Ors. vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2020) 20 SCC 632; Sunita & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; and Rama Bai vs. M/s.

Amit Minerals, reported in 2025 INSC 1162, the learned Tribunal has not committe