1/5

248-FA107.09-Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2009

APPELLANT :-

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

through its Branch Manager,and having

its Divisional Office at Sadar, Nagpur and

Regional Office at Satish Motors Building,

Badnera Road, Amravati, (Original

Respondent no.3).

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :-

1. Balkrushna Mahadeorao Shende, age

about 31 years and resident of

Dhamangaon (Katpur), Taluka Morshi

District Amravati. (Original Claimant)

2. Ambadas Hiraman Tantarpale, age about

32 years, resident of Lehgaon, Taluka

Morshi District Amravati (Original

Respondent No.1)

3. Mrs. Lilabai Mohan Madne, resident of

Ward No.85, Quarter No.15, Near

Sitamata Mandir, Sadar, Nagpur

(Original Respondent No.2)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Amit Kukday, counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : NI

TIN W. SAMBRE

, J

.

DATE : 07.09.2021.

J U D G M E N T

KHUNTE

2/5

248-FA107.09-Judgment

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though served,

none appeared for the respondents.

2.

This appeal is by the appellant-Insurance Company

questioning the award of compensation under section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3.

Deceased Mahadeo met with an accident on 8^th December

1996 while traveling in Jeep bearing registration No.MH-31 H-

546. Holding that the death of Mahadeo was caused because of

rash and negligent driving of the driver, the claimants/

respondents were held to be entitled to the compensation of

Rs.1,00,500/- with interest thereon.

4.

Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company while questioning the award of compensation would

urge that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation, as

according to him, the vehicle insured with the appellant was

planted so as to have illegal claim justified.

5.

So as to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel

KHUNTE

3/5

248-FA107.09-Judgment

for the appellant has invited my attention to the plea raised in

Exhibit-76, written statement and also the evidence brought on

record in the form of police papers i.e. charge-sheet.

6.

According to learned counsel for the appellant, there is

enough material on record to infer that the jeep bearing

registration No.MH-31 H-546, which is claimed to be involved in

the accident, is a Maruti car and not the jeep. He has drawn

support of Exhibit-62, certificate issued by the Road Transport

Department.

7.

I have appreciated the submissions.

8.

The case of the appellant of planting of vehicle illegally in

the accident in question is based on the document, which is the

part of the charge-sheet and the certificate issued by the Road

Transport Department.

9.

The fact remains that the vehicle, which was involved in

the accident, was bearing registration No.MH-31 H-546. Exhibit-

62, a certificate issued by the Road Transport Department speaks

that the vehicle with the aforesaid registration number is a Maruti

KHUNTE

4/5

248-FA107.09-Judgment

car and not the jeep. However, Exhibit-63, a document speaks of

the vehicle with aforesaid number is a jeep of Mahindra and

Mahindra Company.

10.

Perusal of the postmortem report which is at Exhibit-61

speaks of death of cause is vital internal and external injuries

resulting into damage to his ribs. As such, it would be inferred

that the death is occurred because of accidental injuries. Exhibit-

62 is registration particulars issued in relation to registration of

vehicle bearing No.MH-31 G-546, which is shown to be a Maruti

car; whereas Exhibit-63 are the registration particulars of the

vehicle bearing registration No.Mh-31 H-546, of which

manufacturer is Mahindra and Mahindra Company. As such, the

Tribunal while apprec