Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Munni Bai vs Manoj on 4 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21823
1 M.A. No. 4621 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 4621 of 2019
SMT. MUNNI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOJ AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Meena Singhal- Advocate for appellants.
Shri Ashfaq Khan - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri B.L. Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal, under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has
been filed against award dated 08.04.2019 passed by First Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No.65/2016 by which the
Claim Petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
2. It is the case of claimants that deceased Intazar Khan died in a vehicular
accident which took place on 29.12.2015 at about 04:30 pm near Shahpura
Triangle, Porsa, District Morena (M.P.). It is the case of claimants that on
29.12.2015, deceased Intazar Khan was coming along with his goats. As soon as
deceased Intazar Khan reached near Shahpura Triangle at that time respondent
No.1 by driving the tractor bearing Registration No.MP06-AB-0726 in a rash and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:51:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21823
2 M.A. No. 4621 of 2019
negligent manner dashed deceased Intazar Khan, as a result Intazar Khan
sustained multiple injuries all over his body. He was immediately shifted to Porsa
Hospital from where he was referred to Morena and from Morena he was referred
to Gwalior where he expired on 30.12.2015, during his treatment. Accordingly, on
Marg Intimation, Crime No.16/2016 was registered under Sections 279, 304A of
IPC against unknown persons. During investigation, vehicle was seized; spot map
was prepared; and after collecting evidence respondent No.1 was arrested and he
was released on bail; and charge-sheet was filed.
3. It is the case of claimants that deceased was working as a labourer and was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month which was being spent on his family, therefore, it
was prayed that respondents may be made liable jointly and severally to pay
compensation of Rs.42,28,000/-.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the accident. It
was further claimed that since tractor was insured with respondent No.3,
therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation.
5. Respondent No.3 filed its written statement and denied the averments made
in the claim petition. It was held that information of offence was received by
Police after 22 days of the accident. Number of tractor was introduced after 26
days of the accident. Driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and
effective driving licence. There is collusion between applicants and respondents
No.1 and 2, therefore respondents No.1 and 2 did not co-operate with the
Insurance Company and accordingly it was prayed that on account of violation of
terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, respondent No.3 is not liable.
6. The Trial Court, after framing issues and hearing both the parties, dismissed
the claim petition on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that
accident was caused by offending tractor bearing Registration No.MP06-AB-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:51:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21823
3 M.A. No. 4621 of 2019
0726.
7. Challenging the award passed by Tribunal, it is submitted that claims are to
be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. If the driver and owner
were falsely implicated, then they should have challenged the proceedings by
filing application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but even that was not done. To
buttress her submissions, counsel for appellants has relied upon the judgment
passed by Supreme Court in the case of Safiq Ahmad Vs. ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1259,
Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in
2009 ACJ 1725, Kusum Lata and others Vs. Satbir and others reported in
2011 ACJ 926 passed by this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pooja Bhargav and others decided on 13-5-2019 in
MA No. 1127 of 2015, National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. Himanshi
and others decided on 17-1-2020 in M.A. No. 1069 of 2016, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rammilan Yadav and others decided on 28-8-
2019 in M.A. No. 3496 of 2018, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Radha Devi and others reported in 2018 (3) TAC 846 (MP), New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rekha bai reported in MACD 2013(3) (MP)
1417, Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Diwakar Singh and others
reported in 2023 ACJ 2408, Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bhanu Singh reported in 2023(@) TAC 319 (MP), Magma HDI
General Insurance Co. Vs. Bhupendra Sharma and other decided on 1-4-2022
in M.A. NO. 93 of 2017, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Kasturi Bai Chauhan decided on 19-11-2018 in MA No. 971 of 2014, Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mina and others decided on 4-5-2019 in M.A. No.
68 of 2015, and by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Narpal and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:51:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21823
4 M.A. No. 4621 of 2019
another Vs. Kanta Devi and others reported in 1993 ACJ 175.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondents that the case was
considered by the Claims Tribunal purely on the basis of evidence which was led
by the claimants in the claim petition and therefore, it is incorrect to say that the
Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the basis of documents of
criminal case relied upon by themselves.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Claimants have examined Munni (PW-1) and Ikrar Khan (PW-2) in support
of their claim. Munni (PW-1) is the widow of deceased Intazar Khan and
admittedly she was not present on the spot. At the time of accident, she was in her
house and she got information on telephone. However, in para 7 of her cross-
examination, she was unable to disclose the name of the person who had informed
her about the accident. She further admitted that when she received information
about the accident then she was not informed as to how and by which vehicle her
husband met with an accident. However, she claimed that after getting
information her children rushed to the spot and then she came to know that
accident was caused by a tractor.
11. It is not out of place to mention here that appellant No.1- Munni who is the
widow of deceased has not examined any of her children who according to Munni
(PW-1) had reached the spot immediately after receiving the information with
regard to the accident. As per the claim petition, appellants No.2, 3 and 4 who are
sons of late Intazar Khan are major aged about 26, 22 and 20 years, therefore,
they could have been examined by appellants to show that after receiving an
information about the accident, they immediately rushed to spot and came to
know about the nature of accident and as well as details of the tractor and tractor
which caused the accident. Thus, this important link is missing.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:51:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21823
5 M.A. No. 4621 of 2019
12. Ikrar Khan (PW-2) has claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the
accident. He has stated that Mahaveer Jain had informed the Police on 100 Dial.
He further stated that Mahaveer Jain had informed all family members of injured
Intazar Khan. It is further stated by him that 100 Dial took Intazar Khan to
hospital and in the hospital the family members of Intazar Khan had also reached.
Later, he came to know that Intazar Khan had expired. In cross-examination, he
has admitted that deceased Intazar Khan was his uncle (Tau). He further admitted
that he did not give any information of the accident or lodged any report in the
Police Station. He further claimed that he has not seen the copy of FIR and he is
not aware that on what date FIR was lodged. He further stated that about 2-1/2 to
3 months after the accident, he voluntarily went to the Police Station and
informed them about the number of the offending vehicle. Later, he clarified that
police had come to his house and then he disclosed the number of the offending
vehicle as well as details of the accident. He also expressed his ignorance that
police had lodged FIR against unknown persons after 26 days of the accident.
13. Surprisingly, Ikrar Khan (PW-2) is the nephew of deceased who suffered
injuries in the incident, however, neither he informed the claimants nor he went to
the Police Station nor to the hospital. Since Ikrar Khan (PW-2) was the close
relative of claimants then at least it was expected from him that he should have
informed the claimants but even that was not done. Admittedly, Ikrar Khan (PW-
2) maintained silence considerably for a long time and on one fine morning, he
came forwarded and disclosed the number of offending vehicle. This conduct of
Ikrar Khan (PW-2) in not informing family members of injured/deceased Intazar
Khan, in not taking the injured to the hospital and in not informing the police
about the accident makes him an unreliable witness. There is another important
aspect of the matter. Ikrar Khan (PW-2) has claimed that the accident was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:51:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21823
6 M.A. No. 4621 of 2019
witnessed by Mahaveer Jain. When respondent No.1 was arrested, he was
released on bail on the very same day and Mahaveer Jain stood as a surety for
respondent No.1. If Mahaveer Jain was an eyewitness to the accident then why he
stood as surety for the driver is also a mystery? Appellants did not examine
Mahaveer Jain as their witness because he would have been a reliable eyewitness.
Looking to the conduct of Mahaveer Jain in standing as surety for the driver of
offending vehicle coupled with the fact that Ikrar Khan (PW-2) did not inform
even family of deceased, did not go to the hospital for the treatment of
injured/deceased and even did not inform the Police, this Court is of the
considered opinion that Claims Tribunal did not commit any mistake by holding
that the tractor bearing Registration No. MP06-AB-0726 was introduced with a
solitary intention to claim compensation only and in fact it was not the offending
vehicle. Appellants themselves have relied upon FIR which was lodged on
20.01.2016 (Ex.P-2). The accident took place on 29.12.2015 and as per FIR it is
clear that the accident was caused by a tractor of red-colour having no registration
number. Thus, it is clear that in FIR the accident was caused by one unknown
tractor of red-colour with no registration number over it.
14. Under these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal did not commit any
mistake by dismissing claim petition of claimants. Although the counsel for
appellants was insisting that the claim petitions are decided on preponderance of
probabilities and Claims Tribunal should not discard the evidence of witnesses
but unfortunately the said submission cannot be accepted. Preponderance of
probabilities means that the burden to prove the factum of accident is not heavy
but that does not mean that if evidence led by the claimants is found to be
unreliable, still, Claims Tribunals are required to rely on the same.
15. Ex consequenti, award dated 08.04.2019 passed by First Motor Accident
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:51:12 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21823
7 M.A. No. 4621 of 2019
Claims Tribunal, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No.65/2016 is
hereby affirmed. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:51:12 AM