JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant- non applicant – H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. Under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 9th of May 2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harda in Claim Case No.21 of 2011 (Chetna Khanwe and others v. Mohanlal and others) wherein in a motor accident 9.7.2010 the learned tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,76,000/- and liability of the same has been saddled jointly and severally on the appellant- non-applicant- H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. Including the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

2. At the time of arguments, it was submitted that the deceased was Driver of the tractor therefore there is breach of insurance policy as policy was only for Driver and owner. Trolley was not insured by the H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. but it was insured by non applicant No.4- the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and if trolley turned turtle, then liability cannot be saddled against the H.D.F.C. General Insurance Company Ltd. It is further submitted that the eye-witness no. 2-Preetamlal in para-10 of cross-examination has stated that he has not seen the accident.

3. In Claim Case No. 21 of 2011 the applicant witness No. 2 in Para -7 of his cross-examination has stated that accident took place twenty minutes ago they reached the spot, therefore accident did not take place before him but in Para-10, this witness has stated that deceased was sitting on the bonnet of the tractor therefore the statement of Preetam does not help in deciding the case as he has clearly stated that he reached after twenty minutes on the spot after the accident took place.

4. The applicant Chetna Khanwe, wife of the deceased in Para-9 of the her cross-examination stated that she has not seen the accident. Mohanlal – non applicant No. 1, who is Driver of the Tractor has also appeared as witness and he has stated that no accident took place but he has been charged with the accident and he has complained to the Police also, although he submitted that he did not produce any document to show that he complained to the Police against filing of a wrong case against him. Therefore, this witness also does not support the case of the complainant and it can safely be said that simply filing of charge-sheet is not an ultimate proof because the judgment of the criminal court is not on record in which Mohanlal has been convicted for this accident. In this case Investigation Officer has not been examined who could have verified the factum of investigation and what was conclusion of the investigation. Therefore, it seems that this case is lacking of evidence to decide the case finally and it can also be said safely that if a criminal case of an accident and death by rash and negligent driving is thrust upon a person, then on the simple logic that he has not complained to the superior authority and did not file any petition before High Court for quashing of FIR, then it cannot be presumed that he is accepting that the accident was caused by him as per charge-sheet. These are facts which have to be proved by way of reliable evidence in the Court.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case evidence is lacking in this case. Therefore the award passed by the claims tribunal dated 9th of May 2012 passed in Claim Case No. 21 of 2011 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned tribunal with the direction to give opportunity to the parties to produce the additional evidence by way of eye – witness and call for Investigation- Officer alongwith the case diary as a Court witness to decide the case again as per law on merits.

6. All the parties directed appear before the trial Court on 30th of June 2025.