Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Neeraj vs Sanjay And 4 Ors. on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19199
1 MA-1730-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 23 rd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1730 of 2010
DR. NEERAJ
Versus
SANJAY AND 4 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri J.M. Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.R. Purohit, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Shri Rajendra Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 1731 of 2010
DR. ALOK
Versus
SANJAY AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri J.M. Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V.R. Purohit, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Shri Rajendra Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
ORDER
Both these Misc. Appeals have been filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the common award dated 09.02.2020 passed by the V Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khargone (M.P.) in Claim Case Nos.71/2009 and 72/2009.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 25-07-2025 16:58:11NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19199 2 MA-1730-2010
2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petitions on the ground that the appellants failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration number MP-10-A-9173.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, according to the appellants, they are doctors and were employed at Subhishi Hospital, Khargone at the relevant time. They had gone to the Kuksi District Court in connection with matters related to Subhishi Hospital, while returning therefrom on a motorcycle bearing registration number MP-10-F-1430, appellant No.1 Neeraj riding the motorcycle and appellant No.2 Alook seated as a pillion rider. When they reached near Bediyav Gitti Khadan on Khargone-Kasrawad Road, at that point, a Majda Telco vehicle bearing registration number MP-10-A-9173, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with their motorcycle, causing them grievous injuries. Although the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that both appellants sustained injuries, it decided issue No.1 regarding the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration number MP-10-A-9173 against them.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has made a short submission. He submits that Section 166 and other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature and therefore, must be construed liberally. He further submits that, once it was established that the appellants sustained grievous injuries in the accident, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation and held respondents No.3 and 5 (Insurance Company) in M.A. No.1730/2010 and respondents No.3 and 6 (Insurance Company) in M.A. No.1731/2010, liable to pay the same.
5. He refers to para 14 of the award and submits that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is perverse, as the seizure memo, First Information Report, spot map, MLC, X-ray report and postmortem report were all presented to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 25-07-2025 16:58:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19199 3 MA-1730-2010 Court. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the claim of the appellants that the vehicle bearing number MP-10-A-9173 was involved in the accident and should have directed payment of compensation accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his submissions, has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Velu and Another reported in 2025 ACJ 425 , Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand and Others reported in 2011 ACJ 1613 , R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others reported in 1995 ACJ 366 .
7 . Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.3 / Insurance Company submits that the findings regarding the false implication of the vehicle, as recorded in paras 7 to 13 of the impugned award, are impeccable. Referring to the evidence of Dr. Alok Gupta (AW-1), particularly paras 21 and 26 of his cross-examination, he submits that the witness himself repeatedly stated that the accident had occurred with a two-wheeler.
8. He further submits that the appellants subsequently implicated the said four-wheeler in order to falsely attribute involvement and thereby claim compensation from the Insurance Company. He also highlights that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle is a childhood friend and neighbour of appellant Neeraj (in M.A. No.1730/2010). Therefore, it is argued that the vehicle was falsely involved after the filing of the FIR, with an intent to illegally obtain compensation from the Insurance Company.
9. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is correct and that the findings regarding non-involvement of the offending vehicle do not warrant any interference.
10. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 25-07-2025 16:58:11NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19199 4 MA-1730-2010
11. The Claims Tribunal, while considering the submission of appellant Neeraj (AW-2), recorded findings that after the accident, 3-4 persons known to him met him. They were taken to Subhishi Hospital by a Police vehicle, and after an hour, their family members also arrived. Only after they were taken out of the hospital were they able to talk with Dr. Khan and Dr. Kosliwal. Appellant Neeraj referring to Ex.P-185 admitted that medical examination report was prepared by Dr. Daulat Malik. The report mentioned that the injury was caused by a "road traffic accident involving a motorcycle on 26.10.2005" and that the "patient was conscious". He later claimed that this was wrongly mentioned but failed to explain why a doctor, his colleague at the same hospital would include an incorrect fact in the medical examination report.
12. The Claims Tribunal then discussed the evidence contained in Ex.P-1 (the FIR) and Ex.P-6 (the final report), particularly in para 8 of the award. appellant Neeraj also admitted that the initial version of the FIR mentioned a two- wheeler as the vehicle involved in the accident. The words "unknown vehicle"
were written and the term "two-wheeler" was later scored out. Furthermore, in Ex.P-189 (the discharge ticket), the time of admission is mentioned as 31.10.2005 and it also states that the accident involved a motorcycle. Similarly, in the case sheet of Subhishi Hospital (Ex.P-196), the history mentions a road accident involving a motorcycle on 26.10.2005.
13. The Claims Tribunal further evaluated the evidence in para 9 and by referring to para 13 of the cross-examination of Neeraj (AW-2) recorded the finding that he admitted that the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1 / Sanjay Raghuwanshi, is a childhood friend and resides in the same locality (Pahadsinghpura) along with appellant Neeraj. In para 10 of the award, the Tribunal referred to the statement of appellant Alok and cited paras 21 and 26 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 25-07-2025 16:58:11 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19199 5 MA-1730-2010 his cross-examination, which also included admissions regarding the vehicle.
14. Ultimately, in paras 12 and 13, the Tribunal concluded that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and appellant Neeraj were childhood friends and that the vehicle had been falsely implicated to obtain compensation from the Insurance Company.
15. This Court has also reviewed the record of the Claims Tribunal, including statements by appellant Neeraj (AW-2) and appellant Alok (AW-1) as well as the exhibits such as the FIR, case-sheets, and discharge tickets. Upon review, this Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the findings of the Claims Tribunal. It is a clear case of false implication of the vehicle for the purpose of securing compensation from the Insurance Company.
16. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case o f New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) is misplaced. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a claim cannot be rejected merely due to a delayed FIR, it also noted that in that case, the evidence pointed to a skid and fall rather than a motor accident. Therefore, the appeal of the Insurance Company was allowed.
17. Similarly, in the present case, the claim was not rejected merely due to a delayed FIR. Rather, after considering the full body of evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the vehicle was falsely implicated. The reliance as placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the case of Parmeshwari (Supra) is also misplaced. In that case, the Tribunal had awarded compensation, which the High Court reversed solely due to delay in filing the claim petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that this conclusion was perverse due to lack of supporting material and restored the award of the Tribunal. That is not the situation in the present matter.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 25-07-2025 16:58:11NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19199 6 MA-1730-2010
18. In the present case, the Tribunal has thoroughly considered the evidence and found that the owner of the vehicle and the claimant were childhood friends, who conspired to falsely implicate the vehicles to obtain compensation.
19. As regards the case of R.D. Hattangadi (Supra) , it deals with principles of assessment and future expenses, which are not relevant to the issue at hand.
20. In conclusion, the Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, both Appeals are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 25-07-2025 16:58:11