Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Udailal on 18 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22639
1 MA-437-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 18 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 437 of 2023
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
UDAILAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is
finally heard.
2. This appeal under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company being aggrieved by award dated
16/8/2022, passed in MACC No.7/2016, by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Manasa, District Neemuch, whereby a total sum of Rs.21,30,610/- has
been awarded to the respondent/claimant No.1 by way of compensation.
3. As per the appellant, the respondent No.1 has filed a claim application
alleging that on 30/10/2015 in the morning at about 11.30 AM when he was going
on his motorcycle, a jeep driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent
No.3 bearing registration No.MP 44 CA 2592 was driven rashly and negligently
came on the wrong side and dashed his motorcycle which resulted in grievous
injuries to him. He was shifted to the hospital and was hospitalized till
27/11/2015.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Co. submits that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22639
2 MA-437-2023
accident has occurred on 30/10/2015 and the FIR was lodged on 3/1/2016. Thus
there was a delay of 64 days in lodging the FIR. He submits that there is no
explanation for such a delay. He by referring to the cross examination of PW.1
Udaylal submits that in para 16 to 19 he has stated that the respondent / claimant
was taking treatment in Udaipur and also stated that he has told his relative for
lodging FIR. He stated in para 20 of the cross examination that he has given the
vehicle number to his father on a slip but there was no such slip on record. He
also points out that he has admitted in para 19 that he has knowledge of the fact
that information of the incident can be given to the police by dialing No.100 but it
was not informed by him.
5. He then refers to the statement of Sub Inspector Ramlal who was the
Investigating Officer in the case and submits that in para 3 the Investigating
Officer has admitted that he has not recorded statements of the persons around the
spot of accident. Thus he submits that there was no proper investigation of the
accident and its a case of false implication of the vehicle.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant supports the
findings of the award and by referring to findings in para 14 to 19 of the award
submits that the claims tribunal has analyzed the evidence on record in detailed
and concluded that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident. He further
refers to para 13 and 14 of his cross examination and submits that it was clearly
explained by the claimant/injured in his cross examination that he was directly
taken from the spot of accident to Pacific hospital, Udaipur. Along with him, his
father and family members also went to Udaipur. He further points out that it has
been clearly stated by the respondents in para 14 of his cross examination that his
father was with him at Udaipur. He returned on 2/1/2016 to his village and on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22639
3 MA-437-2023
very next day on 3/1/2016 FIR was lodged. He thus explains the delay in lodging
the FIR. He then refers to para 6 of the statement of DW.1 who has admitted that
the respondent No.1 was admitted in the hospital at Udaipur on the date of
accident itself ie., 30/10/2015 and he remained admitted there up to the date of
lodging of the FIR on 3/1/2016. It has clearly been stated by the Investigating
Officer in para 6 that after discharged from Udaipur Pacific hospital on the very
next day claimant's father had lodged FIR. It is thus submitted that the delay is
well explained. He then submits by referring to Exhibit P/139 that in the said
document the cause of injury is mentioned as RTA ie Road Traffic Accident. It is
thus submitted that present is a clear case of accident by the insured vehicle and
there cannot be any doubt on the involvement of the vehicle. Thus he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The sole ground of the appellant company for setting aside the impugned
award is that there is delay of about 64 days in lodging the FIR. Beyond this there
is no material for reversing the findings recorded by the claims tribunal. In a
proceedings under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988. It is only preponderous of
probabilities that has to be established and not the proof beyond reasonable doubt.
This Court recently in the case of M.A.No.1102/2021 ( Shriram General Insurance
Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Pushpa and Ors.) decided on 12/8/2025 considered this aspect
in detail and after referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
Division Bench of this Court has concluded that once the prima facie burden is
discharged by the claimant by leading evidence and exhibiting the documents of
criminal case onus shifts on the Insurance Company to prove false implication of
the vehicle. In the present case the Insurance Company. has not brought the driver
and the owner of the vehicle for proving their case, as regards, the statement of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22639
4 MA-437-2023
Investigating Officer of the police it can be seen from the statement rendered by
him that in fact his deposition supports the case of the respondent/claimant. He
has clearly explained in para 6 of his cross examination the delay of 64 days in
lodging FIR. He has pointed out that the claimant / injured was admitted in Pacific
Hospital, Udaipur and his father was with him and on the next date of discharge
from the hospital and returning to village FIR was lodged. As such the witness
which was brought by the Insurance Company has supported the case of the
respondent / claimant.
9. In view of the above analysis, no case for interference in the findings of
the claims tribunal is made out.
10. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SS/-
