IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3605 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Versus SUNIL ISHWARBHAI PANCHAL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 03/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Act” for short) by the petitioner – - original opponent no.3 - TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the order dated 18.09.2024, below Exhibit 61, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra, (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal” for short) in MAC Petition No.264 of 2017, whereby, the learned Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the applicant - petitioner herein below Exhibit 61 for production of a Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board or any authorized body.

2) Heard learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak, for the petitioner –

Insurance Company. The respondents are duly served but remained absent.

3) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the original claimant – respondent no.1 herein has filed MAC Petition No.264 of 2017 before the learned Tribunal for getting compensation in a vehicular accident in which he sustained injuries. During the period 25.01.2017 to 09.02.2017, the claimant underwent treatment at Param Orthopaedic Hospital and operated for an open Grade III C injury with dislocation fracture of the capitate bone and partial loss of the carpal bone. She has further submitted that the surgical procedure involved amputation of the index finger, removal of the second metacarpal and flap surgery over the right thumb extending to half of the dorsum of the right hand. Thereafter, Dr. Dilip Solanki (M.S. Ortho) has issued Disability Certificate at Exhibit 38, who had not treated the claimant, however, the said Doctor has assessed 90% disability in the Disability Certificate. The said Doctor was examined at Exhibit 36, wherein, he has opined that the disability could be considered as 55% permanent disability of the whole body. She has further submitted that as the Doctor gave an evasive reply and the Insurance Company seeks a reevaluation of the disability which falls under the domain of Medical Expert, hence, the petitioner has filed the application at Exhibit 61 before the learned Tribunal and argued that the Disability Certificate is required to be issued by the Medical Board or authorized body and requested to direct the claimant to produce Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board or competent authority. However, the learned Tribunal has rejected the said application vide order dated 18.09.2024, which is impugned herein. She has further submitted that in the number of injury cases false and vexatious medical claims are being increased alarmingly. It has become easier to get a claim from the Insurance Company rather from a private person by filing a concocted cases based upon the concocted documents. The Motor Vehicles Act which has been called as beneficial legislation is being abused by unscrupulous elements and the claim petitions are being filed based upon the concocted medical documents through the victims have not sustained injuries as written in the medical records, false implication of the vehicles, manipulation of the accident, false implication of the same vehicles at regular intervals and looting the public money in a planned manner to dupe the Insurance Companies