SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11141

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Chadar – Respondent
CR 151/2024



Advocates:
Tejvinder Singh Lamba,

##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

MISC. APPEAL No. 1395 of 2024

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Versus

SMT. LEELA PATEL AND OTHERS

WITH

CIVIL REVISION No. 150 of 2024

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Versus

ROHIT CHADAR AND OTHERS

CIVIL REVISION No. 151 of 2024

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Versus

MUKESH CHADAR AND OTHERS

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

Appearance:

Shri Tejvinder Singh Lamba - Advocate for the Petitioner in the respective

cases.

Shri Jayant Prakash Patel - Advocate for the Respondents in

M.A.No.1395/2024.

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

(O R D E R)

(Reserved on : 17/12/2025)

(Pronounced on: 22/12/2025)

These matters arise out of the same accident. As three different claim petitions

were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) and

therefore, the MACT has passed a common award in these three claim cases and

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 23-12-2025

11:51:28

##PAGE2##

2

since the claim awarded in two cases was less than Rs. 1.00 lakh, therefore,

the revisions have been filed in two cases whereas, the claim in death case has been

subjected to challenge in MA number 1395 of 2024.

2. The counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in all these cases has

vehemently argued before this court that the impugned award passed by the MACT is

erroneous because it is a clear case of false implication of the vehicle and in such a

case of false implication of vehicle, the MACT ought not to have allowed the claim

petition and ought not to have passed award of compensation in favour of the

claimants/respondents.

3. The counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the date of

accident is stated to be 19.06.2019 and as per FIR of the accident, three persons were

riding the motorcycle which were the deceased Dashrath Patel along with the injured

Rohit Chadar and Mukesh Chadar. As per the FIR version which has been lodged on

20.06.2019, it has been mentioned therein that their motorcycle was dashed by an

unknown white colour pickup vehicle leading to the right side of the

deceased Dashrath Patel being badly damaged and other injuries to injured Rohit and

Mukesh. The deceased Dashrath Patel expired while on way to District Hospital

Sagar. It is argued that in the FIR, the vehicle is stated to be unknown white colour

pickup vehicle, whereas ultimately the vehicle that has been implicated in the

accident is an Ape Loader vehicle that too, though is of white colour, but in the

registration particulars, its colour is shown to be yellow and the said vehicle was then

seized on 12-09-2019. It is stated that as per the case diary statements of the injured

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 23-12-2025

11:51:28

##PAGE3##

3

Mukesh (Exhibit D-1), he has been informed the registration number of vehicle by

one Ashok Pratap, son of Anand Singh Patel but the said Ashok Pratap has not been

examined as witness on behalf of the claimants. It is further argued that there are two

eye witnesses of the incident, namely injured Mukesh and Rohit. It is argued that the

injured person Rohit who had also made similar type of statement as Exhibit D-3 has

admitted that the spot map was prepared by the police and therefore, once the

spot map has been prepared by the police and also that he has admitted that his

statement was taken by the police on the next day of the date of accident, then there

was no reason that why the vehicle was seized after 3 months and it is a case of false

implication.

4. It is further argued that “Pickup vehicle” and APE Loader vehicle are totally

different and the MLC papers which are part of the case diary also do not mention the

registration number of vehicle. It is further argued that the injured Rohit had got

himself treated at SGO Hospital Sagar and in the treatment papers it is stamped

thereupon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top