Bombay High Court
Mallappa Vishwanath Swami vs Achut Baburao Jadhav @ Dhumal And Anr on 13 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21913
FA-3570-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3570 OF 2019
Mallappa S/o. Vishwanath Swami,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Private Service,
At Present Nil, R/o. Kasarshirshi,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Achut S/o. Baburao Jadhav @ Dhumal,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : LIC Agent,
R/o. Nelwad, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.
(Owner - cum - driver of vehicle
no. MH-24-V-0049)
2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
"Sumitra" Near Hotel Shanti,
Ambajogai Road, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
(Insurer of Car No. MH-24-V-0049)
Policy No. 23110003113P104123465
Period of Policy : 04.10.2013 to 03.10.2014
Date of accident : 25.08.2014 ... Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
.....
Mr. Santosh B. Gastgar, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. S.S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 07 AUGUST 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13 AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant appeal invokes section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act
challenging the judgment and award passed by Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Nilanga in M.A.C.P. No.07 of 2015
FA-3570-2019
dismissing the claim petition seeking compensation for injuries
allegedly suffered in road traffic accident dated 25.08.2014.
2. Present appellant moved compensation petition by
invoking section 166 of M.V. Act on the premise that on 25.08.2014,
around 4:30 p.m, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing
no. MH-05-AC-1695 over Nilanga to Kasar-Shirshi road, his
motorcycle was given dash by car bearing no. MH-24-V-0049.
Because of the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability
and hence entitled to receive just compensation. Respondents herein
resisted the above claim disputing involvement of the very vehicle
and setting up a specific plea that claim itself is false and frivolous
and that insurer is not at liable to pay any compensation as prayed.
Necessary issues were castes by tribunal and on
analyzing the evidence of claimant at Exh.22, documentary evidence
like FIR, compliant, panchanama at Exhs.24, 25, 26 and 27 were
taken into account. On appreciation of evidence, learned tribunal
recorded a finding that there is inordinate delay in naming offending
vehicle, secondly no evidence to suggest involvement of offending
vehicle insured by insurance company and hence finally dismissed
the petition, which is now taken exception to by way of instant appeal
on several grounds raised in the appeal memo.
FA-3570-2019
SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that,
appellant claimant had demonstrated and established that while he
was proceeded on his motorcycle on 25.08.2014, offending vehicle
insured by insurance company, which was being driven in rash and
negligent manner, gave dash to his motorcycle as a result of which he
suffered multiple injuries on leg, head and other parts of the body. He
suffered permanent disability. That, FIR, spot panchanama, medical
evidence / certificate were placed on record. In view of road traffic
accident, claim for compensation was made out, but the learned trial
court has failed to consider and appreciate appellant's case in proper
perspective. He pointed out that, in cases of such nature, delay is of
no much significance, but precisely it is made one of the highlighting
point by the tribunal for doubting the claim. He pointed out that,
because of injuries, claimant was required to be admitted and treated
at several hospitals. Doctors, who examined and treated, have been
examined, and as such, refusal to consider above quality of evidence
has resulted into injustice and hence, he seeks indulgence at the
hands of this court by allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, registering strong objection to the very
alleged occurrence of accident, learned counsel for respondent -
insurance company would point out that, there are serious doubts
about case set up by claimant. He took this court through the
FA-3570-2019
observations of tribunal in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment
and would submit that, there is correct appreciation. That, there are
good reasons to doubt the very occurrence or involvement of the
alleged offending vehicle. He pointed out that, there is no prompt
reporting. Timings reported regarding alleged occurrence are
varying i.e. in FIR, medical papers and precisely the same has been
correctly appreciated by the tribunal. He further pointed out that, at
first instance report is about fall from motorcycle, and subsequently
case is set up about fall on getting drunk. Thus, according to him,
very alleged occurrence has comes under shadow of doubt and he
urges to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
5. After considering the above arguments advanced and on
going through the papers, it is emerging that, present appellant
sought compensation on account of meting an accident while
proceeding on his motorcycle on 25.08.2014 as a result of alleged
dash given by car bearing MH-24-V-0049 said to be insured by
present respondent no.2.
Evidence of claimant is at Exh.22. As regards to
documentary evidence is concerned, reliance is placed on Exh.24, 25,
26 and 27. Specific objection of respondents is that, said documents
are manufactured. In view of above grounds raised by respondents,
above documents are visited. As submitted, in report, timing of
FA-3570-2019
occurrence is given as 05:15 p.m. However, the very medical
certificate Exh.27 reflects timing of examination of claimant as 3:50
p.m. Therefore, obvious question that crops up is how there could be
medical examination prior to the very occurrence resulting into
injury. There is no explanation to this extent by the appellant. No
case of typing mistake or inadvertencies also put-forth to overcome
the above discrepancy.
6. Another distinct features which is emerging as pointed
out that, in Exh. 46, page nos. 26 and 28, history of accident is given
as "fall from motorcycle" and there is no reference of dash being
given by any vehicle. Further history is given, "while driving home,
after getting drunk, met with an accident and that patient is unable
to recall the events". Such endorsement also creates serous doubts
about dash being given by vehicle allegedly insured by respondent -
insurer. On page 28, another medical expert, who examined him
noted that, "the patient was under a drunken state, when on bike,
suffered RTA and had sustained injuries". Again, details of vehicle
involved are not provided to the doctor.
7. Though claimant has set up a case of suffering permanent
disability due to accidental injury and to that extent PW3 medical
expert is examined, but it appears that PW3 is not the treating doctor
and he has merely issued disability certificate without treating
claimant.
FA-3570-2019
8. Lastly, FIR shows that report is lodged after gap of almost
three months from alleged occurrence. Faced with such situation,
delay is not explained. Even the persons who allegedly shifted
injured claimant to the hospital, are not examined. Therefore,
whatever material is sought to be relied, is not worthy of credence to
accept the case of dash being given due to rash and negligent driving
at the instance of person behind the wheels of the vehicle insured by
respondent.
9. To sum up, here there are serious and several doubts
regarding the very alleged occurrence dated 25.08.2014, in which
dash was said to be given by vehicle insured by respondent -
insurance company. Claimant has not proved very involvement of
vehicle. Belated FIR and multiple histories reported for injury further
contribute to the veracity of claimant's version.
10. In the light of above discussion and on going through the
impugned judgment, this court does not find any reason to interfere
as urged for. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
