Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1340 (MP)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendra Tiwari

2022-11-11

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2022
ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.4894/2016, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 51 days' delay in filing of this Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by the affidavit of the Deputy Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. 3. I.A.No.4894/2016 is allowed and the delay in filing of this Miscellenous Appeal is condoned. 4. This Miscellenous Appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved of award dated 7.11.2015 passed by Shri Gopal Shrivastava, learned II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No.377/2015 awarding compensation in favour of the claimant without appreciating the evidence on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the accident took place on 18.1.2006. According to the evidence, which has come on record, Satendra Tiwari admits that on 18.1.2006 at about 8:00 PM, he was travelling on a Hero Honda CD Dawn Motorcycle bearing registration No.MP17-HG-1373 as a Pillion Rider from Dhekha to Rewa. The said Motorcycle was being driven by Ajay Tiwari in rash and negligent manner when it was hit by a Traffic Police Divider lying on the side of the road in front of Sakshi Travel. He had sustained compound fracture in right knee. He was taken to SGM Hospital at Rewa in the Orthopedic Ward where he remained admitted from 18.1.2006 to 19.1.2006. On his condition being serious on 19.1.2006, he was referred to Jabalpur. He was admitted in Jabalpur on 20.1.2006 and remained admitted in Jabalpur till 16.5.2006 for treatment at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur where Dr. H.K.T. Raza and Dr. Rehan, Orthopedic Specialists, treated the patient. All fingers of his right leg were amputated. He was subjected to four operations resulting in shortening of right leg and 50% permanent disability. He admits that since the condition of the patient was serious, he had not made any report to the Police Station but after coming from Jabalpur to Rewa, S.G.M.H Rewa Police Chowki Personnel had visited him and had taken his statement. He was subjected to four operations resulting in shortening of right leg and 50% permanent disability. He admits that since the condition of the patient was serious, he had not made any report to the Police Station but after coming from Jabalpur to Rewa, S.G.M.H Rewa Police Chowki Personnel had visited him and had taken his statement. His statement alongwith Discharge Ticket were sent to the Police Station Civil Line but those documents were returned by the Police Station Civil Line saying that the incident had not taken place within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Civil Line when on 27.2.2008, he had sent a notice to Ajay Tiwari seeking copies of registration and insurance of the Offending Vehicle and thereafter on 4.4.2004, the reply was received alongwith documents and the application was filed on 4.4.2008. 6. The claimant had examined himself and Driver of the Offending Vehicle, namely, Ajay Tiwari. Ajay Tiwari admits that on the date of the accident, he was having a learner's licence. The copy of regular licence of claimant Satendra Tiwari is not brought on record. There is evidence of R.K. Muchhariya, Senior Assistant of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who has deposed in Paragraph No.3 of his deposition that his Investigator had obtained information from the Public Information Office, S.P.Rewa where it was informed that no accident had taken place near Sakshi Travel on 18.1.2006. Sanjay Kumar Shrivatava too was examined, who categorically deposed that his application given to the Superintendent of Police is Exhibit D/4 and the reply furnished by the Office of the Superintendent of Police is Exhibit D/6 in which it is clearly mentioned that no report was lodged in the Police Station Civil Line nor any MLC was reported on behalf of the claimant. 7. It is mentioned in the impugned award that the Rojnamcha Sanha was not allowed to be exhibited but the fact of the matter is that is available on record and though it was mentioned by Claims Tribunal that it was obtained under Right To Information Act but there is no endorsement of it being supplied under the Right To Information Act by the Office of the Superintendent of Police. Thus, there are contradictory pleadings. Thus, there are contradictory pleadings. There is no explanation for not lodging the report even on obtaining the discharge from the Hospital on 16.5.2006 inasmuch as in the Discharge Ticket Exhibit P/4, it is mentioned that his general condition is good, stable and he was called for the follow up after one month. Even in the Discharge Card dated 13.6.2006, the general condition is mentioned to to good and the vitals to be normal and clinically no abnormality is detected. Taking all these facts into consideration, there appears to be no justification for making a complaint after a lapse of more than two years on 4.4.2008 when the accident had actually taken place on 18.1.2006. 8. Thus, it is evident that the Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate that it is a case of false implication. This finding is recorded on the basis of the statement of Ajay Tiwari, the Owner of the Offending Motorcycle, who admits that neither he had reported any MLC nor had taken the injured to the Hospital nor he got his Motorcycle confiscated or he had not given papers of Motorcycle to the concerned Police. He admits that injured Satendra Tiwari is known to him. He is a resident of his neighbouring Village. No evidence has come on record to show that there was any enmity between Satendra Tiwari and Ajay Tiwari. 9. Thus, there being no justification for not lodging a formal FIR in time though the claimant was discharged on 13.5.2006 and after follow up treatment on 13.6.2006 for a period of about two years, since the claimant was required to prove the factum of the accident and no eye-witness except for the friend of the claimant i.e. the Owner of the Motorcycle is examined though Ajay Tiwari has admitted in his deposition that he was not driving the Motorcycle at a high speed as it is a crowded area leaves no iota of doubt that a case of injury sustained somewhere else has been converted into a case of motor accident, which is not duly supported by the documentary evidence available on record. Hence, the impugned award dated 7.11.2015 passed by learned II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No.377/2015 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is hereby set aside. 10. In above terms, this Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Hence, the impugned award dated 7.11.2015 passed by learned II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa in Claim Case No.377/2015 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is hereby set aside. 10. In above terms, this Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.