Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 376 (MP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Batibai

2012-04-03

S.K.SETH

body2012
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A.No.2283/09 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Badshah & others). 2. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the award dated 16.04.2009 passed by IIIrd Additional M.A.C.T, Sendwa, district Badwani in claim case No.157/09 and 158/09. 3. Two young persons viz. Vinod and Dinesh met with an accident on 06.01.2007 while they were coming on a motor-cycle to Sendwa. It was alleged that the truck belonging to respondent no.7 and driven by respondent no.6 came from opposite direction and collided with the motor cycle. As a result Vinod who was riding the motor cycle died on the spot whereas Dinesh was taken to Civil Dispensary, Sendwa. Looking to his serious condition, he was referred to district hospital, Badwani and he died on the way to hospital. The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Vinod and Dinesh. They filed petition claiming compensation against respondents No.6 & 7 and appellant alleging that the accident was caused by vehicle belonging to Kishore and was insured with the appellant at the time of the accident which took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Salim. In support of the claim petition, respondent No.1 examined herself as the sole witness whereas respondent no.1 in the other appeal was examined as the sole witness. The owner and driver did not file any written statement to contest the claim. The claim was contested by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company denied its liability to pay compensation. It was also claimed that a false claim has been foisted upon the Insurance Company with the connivance of the driver and owner of the vehicle. Learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award and awarded a sum of Rs.4,12,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased Dinesh and Vinod as compensation payable by the appellant along with the owner and driver of the truck jointly and severally. The Insurance Company had obtained leave to contest the matter on merit, therefore, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal without any application of mind to the facts established on record passed the impugned award mechanically. After going through the record, we find ample justification in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel despite the vehement opposition by Shri Godha. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal without any application of mind to the facts established on record passed the impugned award mechanically. After going through the record, we find ample justification in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel despite the vehement opposition by Shri Godha. 5. The accident took place on 06.01.2007 on the A.B. Road between Sendwa and Bijasen. The accident took place in front of a forest nursery. The accident was seen only by Sanjay Mahajan. He immediately lodged an FIR, but he did not mention any registration number. According to him, the accident was caused by an unknown truck. On the next date, Police prepared a Panchnama and the site map in presence of Sanjay Mahajan. It seems that the matter was then put in the cold storage. Suddenly on 8.3.2006, Head Constable Santosh Patidar prepared the Japti Panchnama of a truck bearing registration No.MP-09-KB-8116 from Salim i.e. respondent No.6 herein. As per Japti Panchnama, Salim is a resident of district Dhulia in Maharashtra. It appears that Head Constable Santosh Patidar possessed some divine powers to unravel the mystery which shrouded the accident and after this Japti Panchnama, the Police moved at a lightening speed and filed charge sheet next day i.e. 9.3.2006 against Salim. 6. At this stage, we may also point out another interesting feature emerging from the Japti Panchnama. In the Japti Panchnama Head Constable Santosh Patidar not only seized the truck but also papers relating to registration, insurance, including fitness certificate of the truck. The fitness certificate was only valid up to 16.3.2006. That means after 16.3.2006, in absence of any fitness certificate, the truck could not have plied on a public road. As we have already pointed out herein above, no other witness was examined by the claimants. They did not bother to call Sanjay in the witness box. They did not call Head Constable Sanjay Patidar in the witness box and moreover they did not prove the fact whether the prosecution of Salim culminated in a conviction. Learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to decide the case merely on the basis of a charge sheet as if filing of the charge sheet is enough to prove the fact of accident. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to decide the case merely on the basis of a charge sheet as if filing of the charge sheet is enough to prove the fact of accident. 7. In view of this, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned award and remand the case back for a fresh decision in accordance with law by the Claims Tribunal. The parties would be at liberty to adduce their evidence, if they so desire, in support of their respective claim. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 18.6.2012. By that time, office shall ensure that the original record of the Claims Tribunal is transmitted back. 8. Let a copy of this order be retained in the file of connected appeal.