Shriram Generla Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Ushabai
2025 Latest Caselaw 5461 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shriram Generla Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Ushabai on 12 March, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12677




                                                              1                              MA-1328-2017
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
                                                  MISC. APPEAL No. 1328 of 2017
                                      SHRIRAM GENERLA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
                                                       Versus
                                              SMT. USHABAI AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
                                   Shri Devendra Kumar Gangrade, Advocate for respondents.

                                                                  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 09.03.2017, passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad (M.P.), in Claim Case No.28/2015, on the ground of false implication.

2. It is submitted that accident took place on 20.02.2014 at about 10:30 p.m. FIR was lodged on 04.04.2014.

3. Reading from the evidence of non-applicant No.1 witness Shri Dwarka Prasad, owner of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-05-MJ/6396, it is submitted that at the time of the incident, even the father-in-law of Dwarka Prasad and Kailash Bathre were moving just behind the place of the incident and they too did not thought it fit to lodge report in time.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12677

2 MA-1328-2017

4. Reading from the affidavit of Kailash Bathre, whose presence has been shown by Dwarka Prasad, it is submitted that he too has admitted that he had not lodged any report at the police station. Thus, it is submitted that it's a case of false implication.

5. Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned award.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, as far as Kailash Bathre is concerned, a suggestion was given to him by the counsel for respondent No.2, i.e. the insurance company, namely, Shri Shirish Tiwari and this witness in para 6, denied the fact that he was travelling on a motorcycle at the time of the incident just behind the

deceased.

7. Thus, this evidence of Kailash Bathre, contradicts evidence from Dwarka Prasad that at the time of the incident, Kailash was travelling on a motorcycle behind the offending motorcycle and, therefore, onus could not be shifted on Kailash who has denied his presence at the time of the accident.

8. As far as Dwarka Prasad is concerned, in para 9 of his cross- examination, he admitted that he got his motorcycle repaired as it was damaged in the accident. He denied a suggestion that no damage was caused to his motorcycle due to accident.

9. Thus, factum of accident is admitted both by the non-applicant's witness Dwarka Prasad as well as the person named by Dwarka Prasad as an eye witness namely Kailash Bathre and, thus, accident being proved and this

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12677

3 MA-1328-2017 fact being corroborated from the discharge summary Ex.P/6, wherein, on 24.02.2014, itself it is mentioned that it is a case of fall from two wheeler two days back, it cannot be said that it's a case of false implication.

10. Thus, mere delay in FIR in the light of judgment of Apex Court in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others [(2011) 4 SCC 693] , will not be fatal to the case of claimants and it cannot be said that the case of the claimants is false. Insurance Company did not adduce any independent evidence and that too of their own investigator etc., to find out the truth and in view of such facts, impugned award cannot be faulted with.

11. Appeal fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

A.Praj.