ORDER

Appellant/insurance company preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 01.04.017 passed in claim case No. 129/2015 whereby award of Rs. 12,05,506/- has been passed for death of deceased Suresh Solanki in road traffic accident.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company taking exception to the impugned award vehemently argued that the offending vehicle motorcycle No. MP-05-ML-1368 has been falsely implicated just for getting compensation from the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of witness Sanjeev Solanki (AW/1) son of deceased, Vinod Singh @ Chhotu (AW/2) and Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Kamlesh Joshi (AW/3). Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this court towards the marg intimation (Ex. P/2), FIR (Ex. P/3) and pre MLC report prepared at Narmada Apna Hospital, Hoshangabad (Ex. P/4) for bolstering his submission that in none of these documents, number of the vehicle causing accident was disclosed. FIR was registered on 11.01.2015 more than one month after the date of accident on 08.12.2014. He has further submitted that in pre MLC report prepared at Narmada Hospital (Ex. P/4) in marg intimation (Ex. P/2) and in FIR Ex. P/3), unknown vehicle has been mentioned as vehicle responsible for the accident. No sufficient evidence has been adduced for the findings that motorcycle No. MP-05-ML-1368 caused the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has emphasized that this is a case of false application of motorcycle and therefore, need interference of this Court by way of this appeal in the impugned award and prays for setting aside and dismissing the claim petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. It is not in dispute that accident occurred on 08.12.2014 and there is no mentioned of offending vehicle in marg intimation (Ex. P/2), FIR (Ex. P/3) and pre MLC report (Ex. P/4) but to prove the involvement of motorcycle No. MP-05-ML-1368 in the accident, Vinod Singh (AW-2) and Assistant Sub Inspector, Kamlesh Joshi (AW-3) have been examined on behalf of the appellant/claimant. Though, Vinod Singh (AW-2) in his cross-examination admitted that he did not inform about the number of offending vehicle in the police station but evidence of Kamlesh Joshi (AW-3) who during the investigation found involvement of the motorcycle No. MP-05-ML-1368 in the accident, could not be rebutted. This witness in paragraph 5 of cross- examination has mentioned that he examined Sanjeev Singh on 31.01.2015, Yogendra Singh and Dhanraj on 14.01.2015 and Mahendra Singh on 12.03.2015. He has controverted the suggestion that for the benefit of appellant, he has falsely implicated the vehicle.

5. It was duty of the insurance company to rebut the evidence by requisitioning statement of witnesses examined by the investigating officer but appellant/insurance company failed to do so. This fact has been taken into consideration by the learned claims tribunal in paragraph 12 and 13 for returning findings regarding involvement of motorcycle No. MP-05-ML-1368.

6. In given the fact and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that learned claim tribunal has committed illegality in returning a findings about the involvement of the offending vehicle in accident which occurred on 08.12.2014 resulting injury and death of the deceased. Appeal in devoid of substance. 7. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby stand dismissed. (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2024.05.02 11:27:38 +05'30'