The National Insurance Company ... vs Naeem Khan
2023 Latest Caselaw 18217 MP

                                                        1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                           ON THE 1 st OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                            MISC. APPEAL No. 1891 of 2016

                           BETWEEN:-
                           THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
                           BRANCH OFFICE - ASTHA COMPLEX CIVIL LINE
                           MANDLA TEH- (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI D. N. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    SMT. SUDHA W/O LATE PAWAN SHRIVAS, AGED
                                 ABOUT 29 YEARS, RAJ RAJESHWARI WARD
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    KU SHAILJA D/O LATE PAWAN SHRIVAS, AGED
                                 ABOUT 5 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GUARDIAN
                                 MOTHER     SMT    SUDHA   SHRIVAS    RAJ
                                 RAJESHWARI WARD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    VIMLA W/O RAMNATH SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 50
                                 YE A R S , RAJ RAJESHWARI WARD (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    RAMNATH S/O LATE VANSHILAL SHRIVAS, AGED
                                 ABOUT 59 YEARS, RAJ RAJESHWARI WARD
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    SONU D/O RAMNATH SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 19
                                 YE A R S , RAJ RAJESHWARI WARD (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           6.    SURJIT S/O DADULAL CHOURASIA, AGED ABOUT
                                 35 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 18., SHRIRAM WARD
                                 MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAIBHAV
YEOLEKAR
Signing time: 03-11-2023
12:33:08
                                                                2
                                                  MISC. APPEAL No. 1894 of 2016

                           BETWEEN:-
                           THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
                           BRANCH OFFICE ASTHA COMPLEX CIVIL LINE
                           MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI D. N. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.       NAEEM KHAN S/O NAWAB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 40
                                    YEARS, SINGWAHINI WARD MANDLA (MADHYA
                                    PRADESH)

                           2.       SURJIT S/O DADULAL CHOURASIA, AGED ABOUT
                                    35 YEARS, H.NO. 18, SHRIRAM WARD MANDLA
                                    (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

                                    These appeals coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of the

award dated 28th April, 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla in Claim Case No. 168/14 Smt. Sudha and others Vs. Surjeet and another and Claim Case No. 170/14 Naeem Khan Vs. Surjeet and another on the ground that it is a case of false implication of the offending vehicle.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no. 6 Surjit S/o Dadulal Chourasia in the criminal case has taken a u-turn and has given contradictory statements. Thus, on this ground, the impugned award be set aside.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 03-11-2023 12:33:08

After reading evidence of Naeem Khan, Shri Shukla is in agreement that no question was put to Naeem Khan the injured eye-witness in regard to contradictory stand taken by him before the criminal court.

However, Shri Shukla placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another (2019) 2 SCC 186 submits that even documents which are not exhibited is only a procedural lapse and not to disentitle the claimants to deny their right to claim compensation whereas other sufficient evidence is available to prove the identity of the offending vehicle.

In the present case, it is evident that learned counsel for the Insurance Company though exhaustively cross-examine Naeem Khan the injured eye- witness but did not put any question with regard to contrary stand taken in the criminal case.

It is a settled principle of law that the evidence led in the criminal case may not be read into in a claim case but onus was on the Investigating Officer of the case to have discharge his burden but that burden too has not been discharged by the Insurance Company.

Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Vimla Devi (supra) being not in favour of the appellant to point out that the evidence adduced in the criminal case cannot be taken note of so to deny the factum of accident is factually

incorrect.

At this stage, Shri D.N. Shukla submits that the aspect of contributory negligence is required to be adjudged. However, in view of the fact that no evidence is led by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden to prove the aspect of contributory negligence, therefore,

Signature Not Verified even this ground is not available.

Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 03-11-2023 12:33:08

Thus, the appeals fails and are dismissed. Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 03-11-2023 12:33:08