Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 805 (MP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NITIN KUSHWAHA

2019-11-18

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : – This Misc. Appeal has been directed by the insurance company, under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Award dated 6-1-2017 passed by Fourth Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 6400102/2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 preferred a claim application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 18-4-2013, allegedly involving motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MQ-8826. On fateful day the aforesaid motorcycle was insured with appellant-insurance company. 3. The claim application was opposed by the appellant-insurance company on the grounds that no accident was caused by the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MQ-8826, which was insured with the insurance company. In fact, the accident was caused by the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MD-8826. whereas the insurance company has insured the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MQ-8826, hence the claim application against the insurance company was not tenable and was liable to be dismissed. 4. The Claims Tribunal after framing issues and recording statements of the parties, partly allowed the claim application holding that the respondent No. 1-injured is entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- payable jointly and severally by appellant and respondent No. 2. Feeling aggrieved by which, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding against the record that the alleged accident is caused by the insured motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MQ-8826, whereas in the FIR it is mentioned that the accident has occurred with motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MD-8826. On behalf of the respondent No.1, neither the Investigating Officer was examined nor any positive evidence was adduced to substantiate the fact that the alleged accident was caused by the insured vehicle ( MP07-MQ-8826) and not by the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MD-8826. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after six days of the accident and no reason for such inordinate delay in lodging the report was assigned. It is submitted that from the aforesaid fact the subsequent false implication of the insured motorcycle in the accident is amply proved and the appellant-insurance company deserves to be exonerated of the liability to indemnify the insured. 6. It is submitted that from the aforesaid fact the subsequent false implication of the insured motorcycle in the accident is amply proved and the appellant-insurance company deserves to be exonerated of the liability to indemnify the insured. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that while deciding Issue No. 1 against the appellant, the Claims Tribunal has ignored the major lacuna in the claim application, which states that respondent No. 2 accompanied respondent No. 1 to the hospital and respondent No. 2 was known to the respondent No. 1, even then the respondent No. 2 did not intimate the police regarding the incident. The aforesaid conduct of the respondent No. 2 is quite unnatural and falsifies the story of involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellants prays for allowing the present misc. appeal and for setting aside the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal. 7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and no interference by this Court is warranted. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is apparent from the impugned award itself that the claim has been filed against respondent No. 2-Manish @ Sonu Singh Rajawat, as he is the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MQ-8826. The FIR was lodged against motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MD-8826. The seizure memo (Ex.P/6) pertains to motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MD-8826 and the challan has also been filed in respect of motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MD-8826. Therefore, the appellant’s ground that no accident was caused by the insured motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-07-MQ-8826 was appropriate and no award can be granted against the respondent No. 2 (owner of MP07-MQ-8826). 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Claims Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation against the appellant-insurance company holding the motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-07-MQ-8826 involved in the accident, which is contrary to record. 11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is hereby allowed and the Award dated 6-1-2017 passed by Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 6400102/2015, directing the appellant-insurance company to pay compensation is hereby set aside. The amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company (if any) be refunded to the appellant. 12. 11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is hereby allowed and the Award dated 6-1-2017 passed by Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 6400102/2015, directing the appellant-insurance company to pay compensation is hereby set aside. The amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company (if any) be refunded to the appellant. 12. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.