[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Mukesh Chadar on 22 December, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
MISC. APPEAL No. 1395 of 2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SMT. LEELA PATEL AND OTHERS
WITH
CIVIL REVISION No. 150 of 2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
ROHIT CHADAR AND OTHERS
CIVIL REVISION No. 151 of 2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
MUKESH CHADAR AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Tejvinder Singh Lamba - Advocate for the Petitioner in the respective
cases.
Shri Jayant Prakash Patel - Advocate for the Respondents in
M.A.No.1395/2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O R D E R)
(Reserved on : 17/12/2025)
(Pronounced on: 22/12/2025)
These matters arise out of the same accident. As three different claim petitions
were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) and
therefore, the MACT has passed a common award in these three claim cases and
since the claim awarded in two cases was less than Rs. 1.00 lakh, therefore,
the revisions have been filed in two cases whereas, the claim in death case has been
subjected to challenge in MA number 1395 of 2024.
2. The counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in all these cases has
vehemently argued before this court that the impugned award passed by the MACT is
erroneous because it is a clear case of false implication of the vehicle and in such a
case of false implication of vehicle, the MACT ought not to have allowed the claim
petition and ought not to have passed award of compensation in favour of the
claimants/respondents.
3. The counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the date of
accident is stated to be 19.06.2019 and as per FIR of the accident, three persons were
riding the motorcycle which were the deceased Dashrath Patel along with the injured
Rohit Chadar and Mukesh Chadar. As per the FIR version which has been lodged on
20.06.2019, it has been mentioned therein that their motorcycle was dashed by an
unknown white colour pickup vehicle leading to the right side of the
deceased Dashrath Patel being badly damaged and other injuries to injured Rohit and
Mukesh. The deceased Dashrath Patel expired while on way to District Hospital
Sagar. It is argued that in the FIR, the vehicle is stated to be unknown white colour
pickup vehicle, whereas ultimately the vehicle that has been implicated in the
accident is an Ape Loader vehicle that too, though is of white colour, but in the
registration particulars, its colour is shown to be yellow and the said vehicle was then
seized on 12-09-2019. It is stated that as per the case diary statements of the injured
Mukesh (Exhibit D-1), he has been informed the registration number of vehicle by
one Ashok Pratap, son of Anand Singh Patel but the said Ashok Pratap has not been
examined as witness on behalf of the claimants. It is further argued that there are two
eye witnesses of the incident, namely injured Mukesh and Rohit. It is argued that the
injured person Rohit who had also made similar type of statement as Exhibit D-3 has
admitted that the spot map was prepared by the police and therefore, once the
spot map has been prepared by the police and also that he has admitted that his
statement was taken by the police on the next day of the date of accident, then there
was no reason that why the vehicle was seized after 3 months and it is a case of false
implication.
4. It is further argued that "Pickup vehicle" and APE Loader vehicle are totally
different and the MLC papers which are part of the case diary also do not mention the
registration number of vehicle. It is further argued that the injured Rohit had got
himself treated at SGO Hospital Sagar and in the treatment papers it is stamped
thereupon that injury has been sustained upon having fallen down and there is no
police case. It is therefore argued that in the treatment papers of injured Rohit who
was examined as PW/3 by the claimants, also does not support the version of the
claimants and this makes it fully clear that there is false implication of the vehicle.
5. Per contra, the impugned award is vehemently supported by learned counsel
for the respondent-claimants and it is argued that the claims tribunal has duly
considered all the aspects of the matter. It is argued that the claimant was a rustic
person and also the eye witness-claimants had also sustained some injuries in the
accident and they were firstly treated in District Hospital Sagar and thereafter treated
by a private doctor. They themselves have sustained injuries, hence it cannot be
inferred that they not having disclosed the registration number of vehicle and the date
of accident, was on account of the fact that they did not know the registration number
of the vehicle. It is further argued that if the police does not wilfully note down the
registration number of vehicle then the claimant has little choice in the matter and
therefore the late disclosure of registration number of vehicle cannot be read against
the claimant because the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 are beneficial in
nature. It is further argued that the police might have prepared the statements as
Exhibit D/1 and D/3 in the manner as they are written only to fill up the own lapses
of the police in delaying the investigation of the accident case and it cannot be
inferred that the claimants later on implicated some other unconnected vehicle. It is
further argued that the standard of truth in motor accident claim cases is not strict
proof like a civil suit or criminal trial, but it is preponderance of probability and
therefore, the learned Tribunal has not erred in passing the impugned award. It is
further argued that the uncle of the deceased had got the FIR lodged, who was not the
eye-witness, therefore, the factum of not mentioning the registration number in FIR
cannot be given much weightage.
6. Heard.
7. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has heavily relied on Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Safiq Ahmad v. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 18 SCC 813 wherein it has been held that
the menace of fake insurance claims has to be dealt with strongly and curb. It is
argued that this case would fall in category 5 that is impleading fake persons in actual
accidents. The insurance company has also relied on the judgment of coordinate
Bench of this Court in M.A. No. 4825 of 2018, wherein this court has allowed the
appeal of the insurance company by holding that the vehicle seems to have been
planted in the incident.
10. In the present case, this court has gone through the post-mortem report of the
deceased Dashrath Patel. As per post-mortem report, the deceased is stated to have
expired as a result of multiple accidental injuries. The post-mortem report further
mentions that there are run-over injury marks present over right shoulder, chest and
abdomen of the deceased and there are fractures in right rib bone, right fibula bone
and near ankle joint. Various other injuries are mentioned that is in right ribs leading
to laceration of lung etc. which led to death of the deceased. Therefore, it is a case of
motor accident death, and no doubt can be cast on that.
11. The counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that since the registration
number of the vehicle was not disclosed in the FIR, therefore it seems to be a case of
false implication. The claimants had examined four witnesses. One is Smt. Leela
Patel, the wife of the deceased Dashrath Patel, who is not eye witness and whose
evidence is not so much relevant. PW-2 Mukesh Chadar has stated in para 6 of his
cross examination that he had disclosed the registration number of the vehicle to the
police at the outset, and he cannot state that under what circumstances it has been
mentioned in his supplementary police statements Exhibit D/1 that he has come to
know the number of vehicle by one Ashok Pratap. This witness has explained that the
FIR was lodged by one Alam Patel who was uncle of deceased Dashrath Patel and
since the said person Alam Patel was not eye witness of the incident, therefore he
might not have got the registration number of the vehicle recorded in the FIR, though
he added that he had informed the registration number of the vehicle to the father of
deceased Dashrath Patel on that date itself.
12. Similarly, PW/3 Rohit Chadar also stated that he had informed the registration
number of the offending vehicle to the police but how the police recorded his
statements Exhibit D/3 mentioning that he has been told the number of vehicle by
Ashok Pratap cannot be commented upon by him. This witness has stated that in the
crime details form Exhibit D/2 the colour of the vehicle has been mentioned but
registration number has not been mentioned.
13. The investigating officer was also examined by the claimants as PW/4. This
witness has stated that the FIR was lodged by one Alam Patel and that at the time
of preparing crime details form and spot map the persons present did not disclose the
registration number of the vehicle. This witness has stated that in the merg intimation
also the number of vehicle is not mentioned but stated that it is not necessary to
mention the registration number of vehicle in merg intimation.
14. This witness has further explained that "Pick-up" vehicle is a common
terminology and though Pickup vehicle is manufactured by Mahindra, but it is
commonly used as generic term for vehicle and every small/light loading vehicle is
also commonly known as pickup vehicle.
15. So far as the treatment papers of injured Rohit Chadar is concerned, in the said
treatment papers, though it is mentioned that the patient has got injury by falling
down himself and the injuries does not relate to any police case. However, that is a
stamp made on the prescription of the doctor and it seems to be stamped on each
prescription of treatment of injuries in that clinic, that seems only to avoid the doctor
being involved in Medico-legal cases in future. Therefore, no benefit of this stamp
can be taken by the appellant.
16. The driver of the vehicle was produced as non-applicant witness No.2 and this
witness NAW/2 Dhaniram has stated in para No. 1 his statement that on 19.06.2019
one motorcycle crossed from side of his vehicle but later on one person approached
the motorcycle and started telling him that he has hit some motorcycle but thereafter
that person left after loading down the vehicle. Therefore, this Driver has also left
possibility open in his statements, and did not clearly deny the possibility of his
vehicle hitting the motorcycle.
17. This Court cannot ignore the common practice of the police in treating the
investigation of Motor Accident cases on last priority. Once the FIR had been lodged
by uncle of the deceased against unknown vehicle, then this fact in itself cannot be
sufficient to treat the entire claim to be fraudulent, because that person was not an
eye-witness. It only seems natural that once the police had registered the FIR against
unknown vehicle, then all the consequential papers prepared by the police did not
contain the registration number of the vehicle. Taking supplementary statements in
the manner they are written, after three months, was explained by the respondents-
claimants to be on account of the lethargy of police in not seizing the vehicle and
then filling up the gap and to explain the delay.
18. So far as the vehicle mentioned as of Yellow Colour in its registration data is
concerned, it was not a passenger car, that is re-painted only rarely. It was a loading
vehicle being used in rural area and such vehicles are frequently re-painted from time
to time. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the colour of the vehicle was
deliberately changed to make it fit in the present accident. Even otherwise, no
question was asked from Driver of the vehicle as to the change of colour of the
vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot derive any advantage out of it.
19. It is true that the standard of proof in motor accident cases is the ponderance of
probability and not strict truth beyond reasonable doubt as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Vimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
reported in 2009 ACJ 1723(SC) that the standard of truth in motor accident cases
would not be strict truth beyond reasonable doubt but in ponderance of probability.
The same has been held in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. Vs. The New India
Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr., 2021 (1) SCC 171 as under :-
21. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the
fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are
inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of
preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be
mindful that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim
cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may
happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyse the material placed on
record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not
true.
This extract is taken from Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC
171 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 475 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 278 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1002 at
page 182
22. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier
Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] wherein this Court reiterated that : (SCC p. 650, para 7)
"7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the
first respondent who was driving the pick-up van as set up by the claimants
was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC,
(2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] .)"
20. Therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to infer that it is the case
of false implication of vehicle. After going through the entire evidence, this Court is
convinced that looking to the standard of proof required, the Claimants have
succeeded in proving that the accident took place by the vehicle in question.
21. Resultantly, the Appeal and the Revisions fail, and are dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
