2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 55768
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Savitri – Respondent
MA 95/2015
Shrinivas Gajendragadkar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY ON THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 94 OF 2015 BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. 2 AT INDERGANJ, LASHKAR, GWALIOR THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI S.N.GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1 HARNAAM SINGH S/O SHRI DAYARAM, AGED 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION TAILOR (AT PRESENT NIL), R/O VILLAGE TIGHRA, PS TIGHRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).
2.MANGAL SINGH S/O SHRI RAMJEET SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHHAPRA, PS PICHHORE, TEHSIL DABRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(DRIVER TRACTOR NO. MP07HA3858).
3. RAMJEET SINGH JATAV S/O SHRI DHANIRAM JATAV R/O VILLAGE CHHAPRA, PS PICHHORE, TEHSIL DABRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) (OWNER TRACTOR NO.
MP07HA3858)..
.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO. 1 BY SHRI NARESH SINGH PAL - ADVOCATE)
AND MISC. APPEAL No. 95 OF 2015 BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. 2 AT INDERGANJ, LASHKAR, GWALIOR THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI S.N.GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1SAVITRI W/O HARNAAM SINGH, AGED 34 YEARS, OCCUPAITON TAILOR (AT PRESENT NIL), R/O VILLAGE TIGHRA, PS TIGHRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).
2.MANGAL SINGH S/O SHRI RAMJEET SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHHAPRA, PS PICHHORE, TEHSIL DABRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) (DRIVER TRACTOR NO.
MP07HA3858).
3. RAMJEET SINGH JATAV S/O SHRI DHANIRAM JATAV R/O VILLAGE CHHAPRA, PS PICHHORE, TEHSIL DABRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) (OWNER TRACTOR NO. MP07HA3858).
.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO. 1 NARESH SINGH PAL - ADVOCATE)
These appeals coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This common order shall govern disposal of M.A.No. 94/2015 and
95/2015 both these appeals are filed by appellant/Insurance Company against the common award dated 5/12/2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 37/2013 and 36/2013 respectively, whereby, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 43765/- and 42,810/- respectively alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim petition to injured Harnaam and Savitri respectively, who have sustained grievous injuries in road accident dated 29/4/2011 and liability for payment of compensation amount was fastened over appellant/Insurance Company.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 29/4/2011 injured/claimant Harnaam Singh alongwith his wife injured/claimant- Savitri was going on his M-80 moped from Rarua to village Bhaguapura. As soon as they reached on Indargarh road, it is alleged that driver of tractor No. MP07HA3858 by driving it in rash and negligent manner dashed their moped due to which both sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, they filed two separate claim petitions which were decided by impugned award and compensation as mentioned above was awarded to them.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Claims Tribunal erred in fixing the liability of payment of compensation over the Insurance Company in spite of the fact that no such accident was caused by the insured vehicle and tractor was falsely implicated in the alleged accident. As per the FIR lodged by injured Harnaam Singh himself, the incident was caused by some unknown vehicle and therefore, Claims Tribunal erred in holding the insured vehicle liable for incident only on the basis of planted eye witnesses Uttam Singh and Dharam Singh, whose statement by police was recorded belated on
15/5/2011 i.e. near about 16 days of the incident.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for injured/claimants supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. In both these appeals, injured are husband and wife and appeals are preferred by Insurance Company on the ground of false implication of offending tractor. Insurance Company first rai