Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Shahbano
2025 Latest Caselaw 6815 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Shahbano on 18 June, 2025

                                             1




NEUTRAL CITATION
               N NO. 2025:MPHC
                     2025:MPHC-JBP:26128


     IN       THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
                         ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
                         MISC. APPEAL No. 22 of 2023
                    SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
                                  Versus
                        SMT. SHAHBANO AND OTHERS

Appearance:
      Shri Tejvinder Singh Lamba - Advocate for the appellant.
      Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondents.

                                           ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Company challenging the impugned award dated 29.09.2022 passed by 17 th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby the claim application submitted by the respondents No.1 to 6 has been allowed by granting compensation for death of deceased Shoukat kat due to accident.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this present appeal are that the application under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Vehicles Act (hereinafter shall be referred as 'Act of o 1988') was filed on 24.09.2018 by the respondents/claimants for grant of compensation on account of death of one Shou houkat on 12.05.2017 at about 4.00 a.m. while riding on motor-cycle, cycle, who was dashed by the motor motor-cycle

QE 6043 driven by non-applicant applicant No.1 Moh Mohd. Faizaan rashly and negligently. Because of such accident, ident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries for which he

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

was taken to Hamidia hospital where the doctors had declared him "brought dead". The postmortem was conducted and the offence was registered at Crime No.586/2017 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC against unknown vehicle and charge sheet has been submitted against the offending vehicle and driver bearing registration No.MP MP 04 QE 6043 after completion of investigation. It was submitted that the deceased Shoukat was working as a Mason and used us to fix tiles in buildings and he was the only sole bread earner of the family and because of the death, the family members members/dependants have lost alll the income to sustain their lives and accordingly, prayed for compensation.

3. The rider and the owner of tthe offending vehicle bearing registration No.MP No. 04 QE 6043 remained ex-parte parte before the Court below.

4. The insurance company had denied the averment averments and stated that at the time ti of accident, non-applicant No.1 No.1-rider of the offending motor-cycle cycle was not having valid licence and despite of the fact, the owner had given the vehicle to non-

non applicant No.1 and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make any payment of compensation. It is also pleaded that the owner and the insurance insuran company of the vehicle which suffered accident, was not impleaded as a party. It is also submitted in the written statement that FIR was lodged with delay of 4 months and 15 days. It is also mentioned that the death is not caused because of rash and negligent ridding of the offending vehicle but the motor-cycle cycle of the deceased slipped on the road due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by deceased himself.

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

5. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the Claims Claim Tribunal by impugned ed award has allowed the application under Section 166 of Act of 1988 by granting compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.11,69,640/-.

Rs.11,69,640/

6. By this appeal, challenge has been made to the occurrence of the accident itself by the appellant on the ground of the merg intimation and first information givenn in the hospital by the person who has taken the deceased.

deceased It has been categorically stated that the injuries sustained to deceased was because of the motor cycle, which slipped as deceased was performing stunt. It is further submitted that documents Ex.P/2, P/3, P/27 and P/28, which are documents of charge sheet also discloses the fact that the vehicle got slipped and because of which the deceased sustained injuries. Further reliance has bee beenn placed on Ex.D/3, which is a document of the hospital with regard to injured namely Saboor S written by the treating doctor on the first day where the short story of the incident is written. In that also, itt is written that deceased had sustained injuries i while performing stunt and on that basis has prayed that the accident itself is doubtful and has not occurred but in fact by collusion with the investigating agency later on the offending vehicle has been planted/implicated implicated in the case for taking the benefit benef of the claim.

7. To bolster the submissions the counsel for the appellant has relied on the order dated 21.06.2023 passed in M.A. No.3067/2019 (Shriram General Insurance Co. Vs. Rameshwari Bai and others) others),, wherein it has been held as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

"12. In the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1226, Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 20 & Para 21 (which are reproduced as below) that -

"20. It is well well-settled settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Kn Knowing owing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance importa to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny ju justice stice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.

21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intiintimate mate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. IIn n such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.

(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)

13. It reveals from the record that from the date of the incident till the discharge of the claimant from the hospital, no information regarding accident was given by any person including relatives of the claimant to any Police Station to lodge the report. It is also revealed from the discharge summary Ex.P-

Ex.P 12 that respondent No.1 was admitted at Narmada Trauma Center, Bhopal on 28/02/2017 at 05:08 p.m. and she was discharged on 09/04/2017 at 03:30 p.m. and FIR (Ex.P-2)(Ex.P was registered on 15/04/2017 at 11:49 a.m. which is after delay of 46 days from the date of incident. Explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR has not been mentioned in Ex.P Ex.P-2.

2. It reveals from FIR (Ex.P-2) 2) that after receipt of the copy of rojnamcha-

rojnamcha sanha No.53 dated 24/3/2017 from Police Station Habibganj Bhopal and P-MLC MLC report, inquiry was made and after that FIR Ex.P-2 was registered.

14. In certified copy of RojnamchaRojnamcha-sanha sanha No.53 dated 24/03/2017 of Police Station Habibganj, Bhopal, it is mentioned that patient Smt. Rameshwari Thakur W/o Ishwar Thakur aged 26 years has fallen down from two wheeler on 28/02/2017 at 03:00 p.m. m. at her village, but facts regarding vehicle number and driver of said vehicle were not mentioned. It is mentioned in P- P MLC report of Narmada Hospital (Ex.P (Ex.P-8)

8) that same was provided on 24/03/2017 to Constable of Police Station Habibganj, Bhopal, but rec receipt eipt of said document seems to be received on 25/03/2017, on the basis of which inquiry was

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

initiated. Hence, it reveals that no information was sent to the concerning Police Station prior to 24/03/2017 that claimant/respondent No.1 has come in injured con condition dition due to road traffic accident.

15. The relation between owner of motorcycle (respondent No.2) and driver of offending vehicle (respondent No.3) is not on record. Also it is not on record that in what circumstances the offending vehicle was in possess possession ion of respondent No.3 at the time of incident. Claimant has not filed any document before the tribunal in which the owner of the alleged offending vehicle admitted that alleged vehicle was involved in the incident. Hence, citation Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan an and d Others, (supra) extends no help to the claimant because the facts and circumstances of that case and the case in hand are different. Facts and circumstances of the case of citation Mohammad Azad @ Ajju Vs. Mahesh & Others (supra) is also different, hence that too extends no help to the claimant."

8. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 22.01.2024 passed in M.A. No.4559/2018 (Royal Sundaram Gen. Ins. Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jyoti Bai and others), wherein it has been held as under:

"15. Perusal of (Ex.P/4) merg intimation, (Ex.P/6) (Ex.P/6 Naksha Panchyatnama and (Ex.P/7) postmortem application, reveal that therein it is mentioned that deceased fell from motorcycle and thereby, sustained injuries. Above documents have been filed by respondents/claimants him himself.

self. Therefore, they cannot say that any part/any contents of above documents are incorrect. If, it was so, then, they should have examined concerned persons to explain the same. It cannot be that at one and same time, they rely on one part of the documentt but does not rely on other part of the document which has been filed by themselves."

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied on the order dated 22.05.2020 passed in M.A. No.4825/2018 (Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamlabai Kachhi (Patel) and others and on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of North West Karnataka RTC Vs. Goura Bai ; (2009) 15 SCC 165

10. Placing reliance on these judgments, the appellant has pointed out that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in relying the charge sheet to come to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. It is further submitted that though delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case but in facts and ci circumstances rcumstances of each case, the involvement of the vehicle is to be looked into for coming to the conclusion ffor the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.

11. Per contra,, counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the impugned award by stating ing that in the investigation, the offending vehicle has been implicated and charge sheet was submitted and accordingly, prayed that once the vehicle has been found to be involved in the criminal case, then only on the basis of some discrepancy and contrad contradiction in the documents of the investigating agency, the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation on account of death of their near relative.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. From perusal of record iit is evident that FIR, Ex.P/2 was w registered on 26.9.2017 for the offence which had occurred on 12.5.2017 12.5.2017.. On O the basis of Rojnamcha Sanha No.04, Merg No.21/2017 was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. on the information given by CMO Dr.Sanjeev T/A Naresh Malviya of

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

Hamidiya diya Hospital. In the said information information, it is stated that deceased and injured Suboor were brought by brother Arif, who had informed that at 6.00 in the morning on 12.5.2017 the motorcycle of deceased slipped at VIP road Khanugaon and because of which he sustained injuries. On examination examination, Shoukat was found dead and his body was kept in Mortuary. Surprisingly, after four months, months i.e. on 18.9.2017 during Merg enquiry two witnesses said to be eyewitnesses namely Nijam jam Khan and Fazil were ssaid to be examined by the police and their statements were recorded. Their heir testimony before the Claims Tribunal unal has been examined and it was found that these witnesses are not eyewitnesses eyewitnesses. Applicant pplicant Witness No.2 Fazil azil in his cross examination has categorical categorically ly stated that the accident was not occurred in front of him. H Hee also stated that he had not seen the offending vehicle dashing the vehicle of the deceased deceased. Similarly, applicant witness No.3 Nijam has stated that about deceased Shoukat and injured Saboor, he was informed by Fazil Ahmed. Neither he lodged dged the report nor he escorted the deceased and injured to the hospital. Itt is stated that wher where the accident was occurred he was on the opposite lane. In between there was a divider. It is stated that after the t accident the offending vehicle was ridde dden away by the rider. The said d witness was also not confirmed on the identity of the vehicle of the deceased and the vehicle which has dashed the motorcycle. The documents of charge charge-sheet sheet are filed by applicants-

applicants claimants and as such there is no reason to disbelieve them in regard to the contents.

14. Onn evaluation of the evidence of the said eye eye-witnesses, it is seen that the information which has been received in the hospital at the first instance and on which the merg was registered was not in conformity with the statements of

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

applicant witnesses. Itt seems that these statements were made belatedly to plant the offending vehicle. The he best possible witness to prove the accident was Arif, who brought the deceased and injured Suboor to the hospital. Neither he nor injured Suboor were examined due to which an adverse inference is drawn against the claimants for hiding the best possible witness itness to prove the accident.

accident In addition, Exhibit P/2, P/3,, P/27 and P/28 are absolutely tely against the statements made by the so called eyewitnesses eyewitnesses. The he offending vehicle is said to be seized after six months, i.e. on 23.11.2017 2017 while the driver of the offending vehicle was shown to be arrested on 26.9.2017 2017 from police station itself itself.

15. On the basis of aforesaid foresaid evaluation of evidence, it is clear that the involvement of offending vehicle was deliberate and planted which creates suspicion over occurrence of the accident accident.

16. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of Ravi (supra) has held that if the Court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent person persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground ground. Thus, T on scrutiny of the documents this Court is of the considered opinion that the vehicle has been planted at a later stage.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goura Bai (supra) has held that the documents submitted establishes beyond shadow of doubt that injuries were not on account of any vehicular accident accident.

18. In n the present case also the documents which are submitted do not reflect clear light on the occurrence of the accident accident. Thus, this court is of considered opinion that the accident alleged to have bee beenn caused by the offending vehicle has

NEUTRAL CITATION N NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:26128

not been proved beyond doubt before the learned Tribunal. The he learned Tribunal only relying on the oral evidence which are also tested on the touchstone of the documents submitted by the claimants claimants, this Court found them to be untrue.

untrue

19. Thus, on the basis of above analysis analysis, the appeal of the appellant Company is allowed. Consequently, the claim application submitted by the respondents/ respondent non applicants fails and is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK KHOT) JUDGE

HEMAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2.5.4.20=f8fa0b4f4478c6238823256688e73f 3f8f39554afa15525b099da0b0d40060cc,

T SARAF postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=44B85EDB5491F85DB4FBA34 B88536982559DD7A93EB6A14394E7DF0D8 412C4A8, cn=HEMANT SARAF Date: 2025.06.25 18:55:09 +05'30'