IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 3101 of 2025

ANITA SHRIVASTAVA

Versus

VINOD AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Shiva Kant Dubey - Advocate for the appellant/Owner.

Shri Badri Nath Malhotra- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance

company.

Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi- Advocate for respondent No.1/Claimant.

ORDER another nearby place. The driver of the offending truck, Ramesh, while negligently moving the vehicle back and forth, struck an electric wire. As a result, the claimant Vinod suffered an electric shock and sustained serious injuries. The claimant was immediately shifted to Binaganj Hospital and thereafter referred to Bhopal due to the seriousness of injuries. He was admitted to Tripti Hospital, Bhopal for about two months, where he underwent treatment and surgery, resulting in amputation of his right leg below the knee, rendering him permanently disabled. The incident was reported by the claimant’s uncle, Komal Mogia, and an FIR was registered at Police Station Manohar. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver Ramesh. The claimant also underwent medical examination.

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been

filed by the appellant/owner challenging the award dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Member, First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chachoda, District Guna (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 145/2021, whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of respondent

No.1/claimant.

2. The appeal has been preferred on the grounds of delay in lodging the

FIR, alleged false implication of the offending vehicle, award of excessive compensation, absence of proof regarding permanent disability, and exoneration

of the Insurance Company from liability.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2020, the claimant along with

other persons had come to Semli Haat for loading onions. Two trucks, including the offending truck, were engaged in loading onions from village Chuvadiliya and

4. Respondent No.1/claimant thereafter filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal against the appellant/owner, respondent No.2/driver, and respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

5. The appellant/owner filed a written statement. Respondent No.2/driver was proceeded ex parte, while respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its written statement and admitted the insurance policy.

6. After framing issues and recording evidence, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,96,886/- in favour of the claimant.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award, appellant/owner filed this misc. appeal on the ground that the alleged accident occurred on 15.06.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 03.09.2020 on the basis of complaint filed by the claimant and the claimant was failed to explain the delay in lodging of FIR. It is further submitted that the offending vehicle has falsely been implicated in the case, wherever the claimant was not travelling on the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. It is contended that the claimant has failed to adduce any substantial evidence to explain the delay in lodging of FIR, therefore, false implication of offending vehicle for seeking compensation cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has also awarded the compensation to the claimant in higher side. However, the claimant was unable to adduce the statement of doctor to prove his permanent disability. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, proper, and based on evidence. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

10. So far as the contention regarding delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, perusal of