IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 9289 of 2024

S.B.I. GENERAL INSURACE COMPANY LIMITED

Versus

RAJKUMARI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance

Company.

Shri Aniket Bhadoria- Advocate for respondent Nos. 9 and 10/owner

and driver

Shri Trishant Mishra-Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants

ORDER Kitakhedi towards Beenaganj. When he reached Beenaganj Road, Kitakhedi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chachoda, an unknown vehicle, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the motorcycle.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant–Insurance Company under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 30.09.2024 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chachoda, District Guna (M.P.) in Claim Case No. MACC 02/2023, whereby compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants. The challenge is primarily on the ground of alleged false implication of the

insured offending vehicle.

2.Brief facts of the case are that on 10.11.2022 at about 18:00 hours,

deceased Santosh Ahirwar was travelling on his motorcycle from his village

As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto.

3.Merg intimation regarding the unnatural death was registered against an unknown vehicle. An FIR was thereafter lodged against an unknown vehicle. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.

4.The claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The owner, driver and the Insurance Company filed their respective written statements denying the allegations and contesting the claim.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence, and after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, passed the impugned award granting compensation in favour of the claimants.

6.Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal contending that the award has been passed contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the Insurance Company has successfully established that the accident was not caused by the insured Tractor bearing registration No. MP-08-AC-4587, and that the said vehicle was falsely and malafidely implicated with a view to claim compensation.

7.It is contended that the FIR was registered against an unknown vehicle and the claimants failed to establish as to how and in what manner the charge-sheet came to be filed against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The Insurance Company examined Mangilal Meena (D.W.-2), who categorically deposed that the accident was not caused by the insured vehicle. However, the Claims Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. It is thus argued that this is a clear case of false implication of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company deserves to be exonerated from liability.

8.Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

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

10. From the record, it is evident that merg intimation (Ex.P-4) was registered on 10.11.2022 against an unknown vehicle. The FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged on 24.11.2022, also against an unknown vehicle. Thus, it is clear that from 10.11.2022 to 24.11.2022, the police were unable to ascertain the identity or registration number of the offending vehicle.

11Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet (Ex.P-1) against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. A notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Ex.P-15) was issued to the owner of the said vehicle, who stated that the driver Suresh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, during his