Madhya Pradesh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt Mamta on 23 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6941
1 MA-2535-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2535 of 2025
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SMT MAMTA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Badri Nath Malhotra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Utkarsh Tikhe- Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.
ORDER
Considering the reasons assigned, IA No. 2234 of 2025 , an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant misc. appeal, is allowed and delay of only one day in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Second Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 06/2022, on the ground of false implication of the offending vehicle and, alternatively, for reduction of the compensation amount.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.10.2021, Rinku alias Dharmendra was sitting in front of an English liquor shop situated on Bhind- Gwalior Highway Road when a dumper bearing registration No. RJ-11/GB-6966, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 25-Feb-26 03:02:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6941 2 MA-2535-2025 coming from the Bhind side and driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, resulting in his death on the spot. A report was lodged at Police Station Gohad Chauraha, and an FIR was registered. During investigation, the offending vehicle was identified, the driver was arrested, and thereafter a charge sheet was filed before the competent Court.
4. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The Non-applicants did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and were proceeded ex parte . The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the averments. After framing the issues and recording evidence of the parties, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, counsel for the Insurance Company filed this appeal on the ground that the FIR was initially lodged against an unknown vehicle and the insured dumper was implicated after a delay of about two months, which creates doubt regarding its involvement. It was further submitted that the vehicle was seized after two months and the statements of witnesses, owner, and driver were recorded on the same day, indicating collusion. It was also argued that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month without proper documentary evidence and that notional income ought to have been considered.In view of the doubtful involvement of the insured vehicle, apparent collusion, and erroneous assessment of income and dependency, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the award and submitted that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 25-Feb-26 03:02:03 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6941 3 MA-2535-2025
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
8. On perusal of the record, it is found that the accident occurred on 26.10.2021 at about 9:45 p.m. As per the FIR, which was lodged on 26.10.2021 by Sandeep, it is averred that while he was sitting at the wine shop, an unknown dumper came from Bhind, driven in a rash and negligent manner, and hit a person who was sitting in front of the road, due to which the said person sustained injuries and died on the spot. The police registered the FIR against a dumper bearing an unknown registration number. On 24.12.2021, Krishna Kumar Sharma submitted a certification stating that he is the owner of vehicle No. RJ11GB6966 and that the said vehicle was being driven by Shatrughan at the time of the alleged accident, who caused the accident. The said certification is Exhibit P/10. Thereafter, the police seized the vehicle and, upon completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.
9. So far as the contention of the Insurance Company that there is no eyewitness in the present case is concerned, before the Claims Tribunal, Mamta (AW-1) was examined on behalf of the claimants, who is not an eyewitness, and Ram Naresh (AW-2) and Malkhan Singh (AW-3) were also not eyewitnesses. Vinod Kumar (AW-4) was examined as an eyewitness. In his deposition, he stated that at the time of the accident, the dumper bearing registration No. RJ11GB6966 came from Bhind in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He further stated that he informed the police about the registration number after one and a half months. On perusal of the cross- examination of this witness, it is found that his testimony remained substantially unrebutted. He denied the suggestion given by the respondent that he was not Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 25-Feb-26 03:02:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6941 4 MA-2535-2025 present at the spot.
10. The Insurance Company moved an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal seeking permission to contest the claim on all grounds; however, the Insurance Company did not take effective steps to summon and examine the driver of the offending vehicle to depose in defence.
11. In K.K. Jain vs. Masroor Anwar , 1990 ACJ 299 (MP), it has been held by Coordinate Bench of this Court that the driver is the best witness to prove that there was no rashness or negligence on his part, and if the driver is not examined, an adverse inference regarding rashness and negligence can be drawn.
12. In the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined. The police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, who did not appear before the Claims Tribunal to rebut the case of the claimants.
13. In Basant Kumar vs. Chatarpal Singh , 2003 ACJ 369 (MP), the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the burden of proof lies upon the driver to establish that the accident did not occur due to his negligence. Further, in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vaijanti and Others , 1995 ACJ 560 (MP), it has been held that if the driver is not examined, an adverse inference can be drawn against him.
14. In the present case, the appellant-claimants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence, including the testimony of an eyewitness, which remained substantially unrebutted. The claimants also filed the relevant criminal record. The owner and driver did not come forward to effectively rebut the said evidence. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Insurance Company has Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 25-Feb-26 03:02:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6941 5 MA-2535-2025 failed to establish that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the present case. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company on this ground has no substance. The Claims Tribunal has rightly discussed each and every aspect in this regard at the time of passing the impugned award and, therefore, the impugned award deserves no interference in this regard.
15. So far as the contention of the Insurance Company regarding reduction of compensation is concerned, the claimants produced relevant documents, namely the electricity bills, which clearly demonstrate that the deceased was running a flour mill and oil mill business. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. In view of these facts, the assessment of monthly income by the Tribunal is just and proper and calls for no interference.
16. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 25-Feb-26 03:02:03 PM