IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 13 OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 3095 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER GURUDWARA ROAD, BETUL BANJ, BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI DINESH KAUSHAL - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. POONAM W/O JITENDRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWORK VILLAGE JODKYA, P.O.BAGHOLI, P.S.BETUL BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BARDAR SINGH S/O PRAHLAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMING VILLAGE JODKYA POST BAGHOLI THANA BETUL BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. KANTI BAI W/O BARDAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE JODKYA POST BAGHOLI THANA BETUL BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SUJAL D/O JITENDRA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH HIS MOTHER POONAM VILLAGE JODKYA POST BAGHOLI THANA BETUL BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. MAYANK S/O JITENDRA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT MINOR THROUGH HER MOTHER POONAM VILLAGE JODKYA POST BAGHOLI THANA BETUL BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. BABLU BAGHELA S/O RAMCHANDRA OCCUPATION: DRIVER SOHAGPUR THANA BETUL BAZAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI

7. SANDEEP RAGHUVANSHI S/O VIJAY SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MOTIWARD THANA ROAD TIKARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR RESPONDENTS, THOUGH SERVED)

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

With consent learned counsel for the appellant, heard finally at motion stage.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant /Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by award dated 29.9.2021 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul in MACC No.100044/2016 seeking setting aside of impugned award and exoneration from liability to compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, after referring to para 11 of claim petition, submits that therein it is not mentioned that how and in what manner accident took place. It is also urged that in the instant case, accident took place on 27.1.2016 and FIR has registered on 02.02.2016. Further, after referring to marg intimation(Ex.P/3), it is submitted that above marg intimation has been lodged on the basis of information provided by one of the pillion rider i.e. Phool Chand, who was going with deceased on motorcycle and above marg intimation has been lodged by father of deceased Jitendra. After referring to above marg intimation as well as deposition of applicant witness Phool Chand, it is urged that if accident had occurred on accident of offending vehicle, then, this fact should have been mentioned in marg intimation (Ex.P/3) and FIR should have also been lodged immediately but it is not so. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI is also urged that claimants have not examined Bardar Singh, father of deceased who lodged marg imtimation and another pillion rider Umesh. Further, after referring to para 13, of Sandeep Raghuwanshi's deposition, it is submitted that Sandeep Raghuwanshi is owner of offending vehicle and that he has planted his vehicle in collusion with claimants just to get compensation. It is because Sandeep Raghuwanshi's above vehicle has also been found involved in another accident case which is evident from Ex.D/1 to D/3. It is also urged that deposition of Santosh, investigator appointed by appellant/Insurance Company, also clearly establish that offending vehicle has been involved in the accident just to get compensation. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and impugned award be set aside.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the case.

5. Admittedly, in the instant case accident occurred on 27.1.2016 and FIR has been registered on 02.2016 after marg enquiry and on the basis of marg intimation (Ex.P/3). It is evident from record of the case that deceased was riding motorcycle along with two pillion riders, namely, Phoo