##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3672

1 MA-3939-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 3939 of 2023

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Versus

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance

Company.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma- Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

ORDER

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

filed by the appellant/Insurance Company arising out of the award dated

03.03.2023 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”), District Bhind (M.P.), in

Claim Case No.25/2022 on the ground of false involvement of vehicle.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2019 at about 00:01 hrs.,

Suraj Prasad Katare was standing in front of the Vegetable Market on By-

Pass Road, Bhind, when a truck bearing registration No. UP80-BT-6474,

driven rashly and negligently, hit him, causing grievous injuries, and he

subsequently died during treatment. An FIR was lodged at Police Station

Dehat, Bhind against an unknown driver. During investigation, the insured

truck was seized and its driver, Dhirendra Singh, was arrested and a charge

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AVINASH

BHARGAV

Signing time: 31-Jan-26

12:43:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3672

2 MA-3939-2023

sheet was filed against him. Thereafter, claimants filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. The non-

claimants (therein) filed their written statements and denied the claim

averments.

3. After framing the issues, hearing the counsel for both the parties and

taking evidence of both the parties, Claims Tribunal awarded compensation

in favour of claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that

the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the

settled principles of law and the evidence available on record and, therefore,

deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the accident was not caused by

the insured truck bearing registration No. UP80-BT-6474 and that the said

vehicle was falsely and mala fide involved in the accident with a view to

claim compensation. It is undisputed that the FIR dated 29.04.2019 was

registered against an unknown vehicle on the report of Rinkesh Sharma,

brother-in-law of the deceased, and despite the same, the Tribunal wrongly

held that the accident was caused by the insured vehicle. The insured truck

was seized after an unexplained delay of more than two years, i.e., on

15.09.2021, which casts serious doubt on its involvement. It is further

submitted that the Insurance Company examined its investigator, B.P. Singh,

who categorically stated that the insured vehicle was not involved in the

accident; however, the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate his

testimony. The FIR itself records that the accident was caused by an

unknown vehicle and that there was no eyewitness. The statements of Ajay

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AVINASH

BHARGAV

Signing time: 31-Jan-26

12:43:55 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3672

3 MA-3939-2023

Katare and Arpit Choudhary are unreliable, as they were not present at the

spot. The claimants also failed to examine the Investigating Officer, who was

the most material witness to establish the involvement of the insured vehicle.

In absence of cogent evidence, the finding of the Tribunal is unsustainable. It

is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded excessive

compensation, particularly under the head of consortium, which is contrary

to the law. Hence, the compensation awarded is on the higher side and

deserves to be suitably reduced, and the impugned award is liable to be set

aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3

opposed the prayer of counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and prayed

for rejection of this misc. appeal.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by