IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 528 of 2017 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD THR Versus SMT. BRAHMPUTRI ANAND AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Shri Ram Kishor Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to

4/claimants.

ORDER This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company challenging the award dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Fifth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 255/2014. The appeal has been filed on the ground of alleged false involvement of the insured vehicle and, consequently, seeking exoneration from liability.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.82,00,000/- on account of the death of deceased G.P. Anand (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road traffic accident dated 24.05.2013 allegedly involving car bearing registration No. MP07-CB-3669. On the date of the incident, the said vehicle was insured with the appellant–Insurance Company. It was alleged that on the fateful day, the deceased was travelling in the insured car, which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.5, resulting in the death of the deceased.

3. The appellant–Insurance Company as well as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their replies denying the averments made in the claim petition.

4. After hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence, and upon appreciation of the material on record, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal contending that the award is contrary to the facts on record and settled principles of law. It was submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in deciding Issue No.1 by holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle by respondent No.5. It was further contended that from the documents on record, namely, the written application dated 25.05.2013, Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-6), FIR (Ex.P-1) and other documents, there is no mention that respondent No.5 was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. From the said documents, it appears that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was also contended that the Claims Tribunal relied upon the testimony of alleged eye-witness Imrat Shrivas (PW-2), who is neither reliable nor trustworthy. The police filed the charge-sheet without mentioning his name as an eye-witness. The appellant further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of surveyor Rajeev Juneja (DW- 2), an expert witness, who opined in his report (Ex.D-2) that considering the extent of damage to the vehicle, particularly the roof panel being badly crumpled, it was impossible for the driver to have escaped without injuries, thereby indicating false implication of the driver to claim compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned Award passed by claims Tribunal and prays for dismissal of instant appeal.

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

8. On perusal of the record, it is evident that as per FIR (Ex.P-1) and Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-6), the alleged accident occurred on 24.05.2013. According to Rojnamcha Sanha, ward boy Kailash Sharma informed the police that the deceased was brought to the hospital in dead condition by a 108 ambulance. The said information was recorded on 25.05.2013. On 25.05.2013 at about 8:10 AM, Rahul Anand, son of the deceased and owner of the offending vehicle, informed the police that his fa