IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 19^th OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 778 of 2012 MANAGER H.D.F.C.ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE Versus SMT.ARCHANA GURJAR AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the appellant-insurnace company.

Shri RN Dave and Shri Hemant Vaishav - Advocate for the respondents.

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 788 of 2012 SMT. ARCHNA BEVA AND 2 ANR. AND OTHERS Versus SHAKIR AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.N. Dave and Shri Hemant Vaishnav - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the respondent No. 3.

ORDER This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 08.02.2012 passed in Claim Case No. 76/2011 whereby an award of Rs.27,41,945/- with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition dated 05.10.2010 has been awarded to the claimants-surviors of the deceased Mukesh, who passed away in a road traffic accident occurred on 07.07.2010 when the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle and same was dashed by offending vehicle No. M.P. 09 5535 driven by Shakir Ali/respondent No. 1 in M.A. No.

778/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the aforesaid date 07.07.2010 deceased Mukesh Kumar was hit by aforesaid truck No. MP 09 5535 and succumbed to the injuries and passed away on the spot. FIR was lodged at Police Station - Station Road, Ratlam where an FIR was registered under Sections 279, 304A of IPC which gives rise to Criminal Case No. 2097/2010. For the untimely accidental death of the deceased claim petition was preferred by the survivors, those are - minor son (appellant No. 4), daughter (appellant No.3), wife (appellant No. 1) and father Harilalal (appellant No. 2).

3. Since both the appeals have arisen from the impugned award, therefore, they have been analogously heard and are being disposed off by this common order.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company has vehemently assailed the impugned award on the ground that documents cover note (Ex.P/20) and policy (Ex.P/21) filed by appellants are forged. He submits that he has filed these documents as Annexure D/4 & D/5 which cover the period from 16.07.2010 to

15.07.2011. The documents Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/21 filed by appellants/claimants were not recovered with the truck and have been seized only on 18.08.2010 after near about one month when the incident took place. He further submits that there was no fitness of the offending vehicle on the date of incident and on these grounds raised contentions that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and fastening the liability of payment of compensation on insurance company. On the point of enhancement, he further submits that amount of award is just and proper, therefore, needs no enhancement. On these submissions, he prays for allowing the appeal filed on behalf of insurance company and prays for dismissal of the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants.

4.1 To buttress his point, learned counsel for the appellant-

insurance company has relied upon an order passed by this Court in para - 8 of M.A. No. 4218/2022 (The New India Assurance Ltd. vs. Bhagwanlal & Ors.) decided on 06.03.2024, M.A. No. 1849/2019 (United India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rahul) decided on 31.10.2019, in para 17 to 21 of the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of Keralal High Court in the case of Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (MACD 2019(2) (Ker.) 529, in para-13 of S.M. Sharmila vs.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 ACJ 693.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that liability has been rightly fastened on the insurance company appreciating the evidence available on record and, therefore, contentions made by counsel for the insurance company in this regard are of no consequence. For this he has invited the attention of this Court towards documents Ex.D/4 & D/5 which are policy and cove