Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Aarti Yadav on 11 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12218
1 MA-3101-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3101 of 2024
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
AARTI YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Yadav - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of the award
dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bina, District Sagar (M.P.) in MACC No.02/2023 ( Smt.
Arti Yadav and others Vs. Rupesh Yadav and others ), allowing the claim of
the claimants on death of deceased Sunil Yadav in an arbitrary and illegal
manner.
2. Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company submits that the incident took place on 11.09.2022. In
the postmortem report (Ex.P-13), it is mentioned that Sunil Yadav died on
account of his tractor turning turtle, as a result of which he came under the
tractor and his body was found below the seat. It is pointed out that even in
Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P-5), same thing is mentioned and it is no where
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12218
2 MA-3101-2024
mentioned that the incident took place with the offending vehicle insured
with the appellant-insurance company.
3. Reading from the evidence of Pramod Singh Yadav, uncle of the
deceased, who is also the author of the FIR, it is submitted that the evidence
is contrary to the record. FIR was recorded over a month after the incident
took place. Pramod Singh Yadav has stated in paragraph 1 of his evidence
that when Sunil Yadav did not return home upto 6-7 PM, then they had gone
in search of Sunil. Near the Dhaba of Satyendra Yadav, they had seen that
tractor of Sunil Yadav had turned turtle and another Swaraj 855 tractor was
standing there. It is further submitted that since the accident had taken place
with Swaraj 855 tractor, therefore, tractor of Sunil Yadav had turned turtle,
as a result of which, deceased Sunil Yadav was found buried under the seat
of the tractor.
4. Shri Rajendra Yadav, learned counsel for the claimants, in his turn,
supports the impugned award and submits that in the light of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, AIR
2011 SC 1226 , delay in FIR cannot be treated to be fatal to the claim of the
claimants.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.D-2) was lodged by Pramod Singh
Yadav. Pramod Singh Yadav in his evidence has admitted in cross-
examination that he was not present at the place of the incident. He has
further admitted in paragraph 4 that when he had reached the place of
incident, he found the tractor of deceased Sunil Yadav to have turtle and was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12218
3 MA-3101-2024
lying as such. He admitted that he had not seen the incident. However, when
his statements in paragraph 1 is taken into consideration, then if he had seen
Swaraj 855 tractor standing near the place of incident and he had information
in regard to the accident taking place with Swaraj 855 tractor, then there was
no stopping for him to lodge the Dehati Merg Intimation to this effect that
Swaraj 855 tractor had caused the accident, as a result of which tractor of
deceased Sunil had turned turtle. He had not said anything about the presence
of Swaraj 855 tractor and the incident taking place with the said tractor in
Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.D-2). Therefore, evidence of Pramod Yadav that
Swaraj 855 tractor was standing close to the place of incident and it had
caused the accident, is not made out.
6. As far as driver of the offending tractor is concerned, he has been
examined as non-applicant witness No.1. Rupesh Yadav has categorically
stated that he had not caused any accident. There is no suggestion to him in
cross-examination by the learned counsel for the claimants Shri Deepak Jain
that the accident had taken place with his Swaraj 855 tractor.
7. In view of such facts, when chronology of events is connected, then
when the star claimant witness Pramod Singh Yadav did not make any
mention of Swaraj 855 tractor while lodging Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.D-
2), then after lapse of more than a month, it is not open to the claimants to
say that Swaraj 855 tractor was involved in the accident. It is a clear case of
false implication and such practice needs to be deprecated. Therefore, in
terms of the evidence available on record, impugned award having been
passed on surmises and conjectures and without appreciating the evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12218
4 MA-3101-2024
record in the correct perspective, deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed and disposed of.
8. Record of the learned Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
