Bombay High Court
M/S Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Meenabai Balaji Bhagure And Anr on 2 February, 2024
-1-
fa3680.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3680 OF 2019
M/s Shriram General Insurance Co. ....Appellant
VERSUS
Meenabai Balaji Bhagure & another .....Respondents
.....
Mr. A. P. Basarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. V. N. Upadhye, Advocate for
Appellant
Mr. A. D. Sonkawade, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024.
PER COURT :
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act preferred by the insurer against judgment and award dated 29 th
July, 2019 passed in MACP No. 252/2014.
2. A very short issue involved in the present appeal is as to
whether the Tribunal has committed error in fastening liability of
payment of compensation on insurer in absence of any conclusive
evidence indicating involvement of offending vehicle i.e. tempo
bearing registration No. MH 04 CP 9017 in the accident in question.
fa3680.19.odt
3. Learned counsel for insurer relying upon the evidence on
record submits that admittedly, there is delay of about 18 days in
lodging First Information Report. It is his contention that when such
delay is caused, the Court has to insist upon the claimant to prove
occurrence and involvement of offending vehicle in such accident. It
is his contention that except for statement of one witness recorded
under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure during the course
of investigation of the crime, there is no statement of any other
person who has witnessed the accident. By referring to said
statement, it is argued that the said witness in her statement has
disclosed that the colour of the offending vehicle was brown whereas
registration record indicates that the vehicle's colour is gray. Thus,
according to him, evidence led by claimant is not sufficient to prove
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question.
Thus, the liability of the insurer ought to have been absolved by the
Tribunal. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on
following judgments of this Court :
i) M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Vanita
ii) M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tilottam
Sandip Sonawane & others
AIROnline 2022 Bom 786
fa3680.19.odt
4. Learned counsel for claimant opposed the said
contention by drawing attention of the Court to the evidence of
claimant who has sustained injuries and obviously has witnessed the
accident. It is his submission that there is corroborating evidence to
indicate that claimant was taken to hospital immediately where
history was given of road traffic accident. Thus, this is not a case
that fabrication of report is there showing road traffic accident. It is
his submission that in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for insurer in this case, none of the witnesses to the accident was
examined and in that circumstances, the Court has refused to accept
veracity of First Information Report. To support his submissions, he
placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravi vs.
Badrinarayan and others, (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that on 27th August,
2014, claimant was given dash by a motor vehicle resulting into
causing of serious injuries to her. There is evidence indicating that
she was taken to hospital and the history recorded at the time of her
admission is of road traffic accident. Claimant examined herself and
has narrated the manner in which the accident has occurred. Insurer
is raising objection with regard to lodging of First Information Report
fa3680.19.odt
on the ground that it has been lodged after about 18 days. In this
regard, it is pertinent to note that during cross examination of the
claimant she has stated about she being in unconscious state for
about 18 days. There is no evidence to indicate contrary. Having
regard to this evidence of the claimant, delay in lodging First
Information Report is explained satisfactorily. It is settled law that
merely because delay is caused that itself will not become a ground
for refusal of the claim. Thus, this Court finds that it is not a case
wherein delay has been caused in order to create record. Moreover,
there is nothing on record to indicate any reason for falsely involving
offending vehicle in the accident in question.
6. It is also pertinent to note that owner of the vehicle has
failed to contest the claim. There is no denial of the owner and driver
of the vehicle about the vehicle in question being not involved in the
crime. Even if owner has failed to contest the claim, it was open for
the insurer to examine the owner in order to bring the said fact on
record. Admittedly, no evidence is led by insurer. In the aforesaid
circumstances, there is no rebuttal on the part of the insurer about
the evidence led by claimant showing involvement of offending vehicle
fa3680.19.odt
in this accident. As such, no case is made out for causing
interference in the findings recorded by Tribunal.
7. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Amount
deposited by insurer/appellant is allowed to be withdrawn by
respondents with accrued interest, if any.
8. Pending application, if any, does not survive and stands
disposed of.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
