Madhya Pradesh High Court
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Angad Ahirwar on 7 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328
1 MA-7964-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 7964 of 2025
IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
ANGAD AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar, Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Shri Somesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous appeal, under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed, against the Award dated 30/6/2025 passed by III Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Datia in MACC No.76/2023.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the false involvement of Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0184.
3. This Court by a detailed order passed today in C.R. No. 1065/2025 has held that accident did take place with Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0184 and not bus bearing registration number MP32-P- 0791 as claimed by the Insurance Company.
4. No cross-objection has been filed by claimants challenging the quantum of compensation.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 2 MA-7964-2025
5. In C.R. No.1065/2025, the following order was passed:-
"This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against the Award dated 30/6/2025 passed by III Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Datia in Claim Case No.75/2023.
2. It is pointed out that no cross-objection has been filed by the claimants.
3. Before considering the facts of this case, it is pointed out that the record of MACC No. 264/2022 was meant for M.A. No. 7958 of 2025, but the office had tagged the said record in M.A. No. 7959 of 2025. By common award five Motor Accident Claim petitions were decided and the evidence of defendant witnesses namely Dinesh Gupta (D.W.1) and Bahadur Singh Dangi (D.W.2) are the part of record of MACC No. 264/2022. The office has scanned and uploaded the record of MACC No. 264/2022 in M.A. No. 7958/2025, but most of the documents which have already been scanned and uploaded are not the part of the original record kept in M.A. No. 7958/2025. The Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to conduct an enquiry on the following two issues :
(i) Who had scanned the record of MACC No. 264/2022 and uploaded the same on the ERP wrongly in the file of M.A. No. 7959/2025 ? If the scanning and uploading has been done in Gwalior Bench, then why the documents which were scanned and uploaded are not available in the original record ?
(ii) Whether the scan copy of record was received from the Claims Tribunal but complete record has not been received from the Claims Tribunal ?
The Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to place the enquiry report on administrative side.
The Counsel for the parties did not dispute the record of the Claims Tribunal which has been uploaded on the ERP file of M.A. No. 7958/2025. Therefore, the case was heard finally.
4. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that claimant/respondent No.1 was travelling in a Bus. On 8/11/2022, when the ill fated Bus reached near the field of Bahadur Dangi situated on Bhander-Datia road, it turned turtle on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver. As a result, Rajesh Gupta died, whereas Ashutosh, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Angad Ahirwar and Sanjeev alias Sonu suffered injuries. MACC No..264/2022 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Rajesh Gupta, whereas MACC No. 55/2023 was filed by injured Ashutosh Sharma, MACC No. 75/2023 was flied by injured Manoj Kumar Sharma, MACC No. 76/2023 was filed by injured Angad Ahirwar and MACC No. 105/2023 was filed by Sanjeev Prajapati. All the five claim cases were clubbed together. Evidences were recorded and after recording evidence, Claims Tribunal held that registration number of Bus which had turned turtle was MP32-P-0184 and not MP32-P-0791, as claimed by the Insurance Company.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 3 MA-7964-2025
5. Challenging the Award passed by Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by counsel for appellant/Insurance Co. that in fact Bus No. MP32-P-0791 had turned turtle and the deceased died in the said accident, as well as, injured persons also suffered injuries in the said accident. Since Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was an uninsured Bus, therefore, deliberately the Bus was changed and it was projected that Bus bearing registration No. MP32-P-0184 had turned turtle. It is submitted that in fact Bus No. MP32-P-0791 belongs to brother of the owner and since it was an uninsured vehicle, therefore, in order to falsely claim compensation from the Insurance Company, the Bus which never met with an accident was involved.
6. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant/Insurance Co. had got the matter investigated through its Investigator Dinesh Gupta (DW1), who on the basis of video uploaded on Youtube, as well as, on the basis of news published in the newspaper had given his report that the accident was caused by Bus No. MP32-P- 0791 and the Bus No. MP32-P-0184 was falsely implicated in order to claim compensation from the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that on the basis of report submitted by Investigator, a report was also given to SDO(P) who rejected the complaint merely on the ground that Police after concluding the investigation has filed the chargesheet. It is further submitted that although the Police had prepared crime details form on the very next date of accident, but they deliberately did not mention the registration number of the ill-fated Bus. Even in the seizure memo, registration number of the Bus was not mentioned. Thus, it is clear that Police had joined hands with the owner of the Bus to facilitate him to substitute the insured Bus in place of un-insured Bus. It is further submitted that appellant has also examined Bahadur Singh Dangi as DW2, who has specifically stated that the ill-fated Bus had turned turtle in his field. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact the ill-fated Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was an uninsured Bus, therefore, it was substituted by another Bus belonging to brother of the owner of ill-fated Bus so that compensation amount can be recovered from the Insurance Company.
7 . Per contra application is vehemently opposed by counsel for claimant, as well as, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
8. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
9. The first question for consideration is with regard to the status, as well as, authority and powers of Investigator. Counsel for appellant has relied upon notification published in Gazette of India dated 25/2/2022, by which Rules were framed known as The Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 ( for short "the Rules of 2022"). By referring to Rule 25, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that every Insurance Company is entitled to verify the correctness of a claim-case and, accordingly, either the Insurance Company can direct its own Officer or can appoint an Investigator for the said purpose. It is submitted that in case if information given in DAR is found incorrect, then report of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 4 MA-7964-2025 notified Officer/Investigator shall be sent to concerning DCP and upon investigation if it is found that a false case has been registered, then the Insurance Company can make an application before the DCP for collecting the Call Detail Record (CDR) of the driver of the ill-fated vehicle. Hindi version of Rule 25 reads as under:-
25. दावे को स या पत करने का बीमा कंपिनय का कत य बीमा कंपिनयां येक दावे क स यता/वा त वकता को स या पत करने के िलए बा य ह। बीमा कंपिनयाँ दावे को स या पत करने के िलए अपने वयं के अिधकार (अिधका रय ) को िनदिशत करगी या एक अ वेषक या सव क िनयु करगी।
य द ड एआर म दए गए ववरण गलत पाए जाते ह, तो नािमत अिधकार सव क/अ वेषक क रपोट क ित संबंिधत ड सीपी को भेजेगा। य द अ वेषण करने पर बीमा कंपनी को फज दघ ु टना का मामला िमलता है , तो बीमा कंपनी संबंिधत ड सीपी के सम दोषी वाहन के चालक के कॉल डटे ल रकॉड (सीड आर) क मांग करने के िलए एक आवेदन दायर करने के िलए वतं है ।
10. Thus, it is submitted that Investigator appointed by Investigating Agency has an authority to investigate into correctness of the allegations.
11. The moot question for consideration is that to what extent the report submitted by Investigator or notified Officer is admissible in law or whether it is merely an opinion? Furthermore, whether Investigator/nominated Officer has any authority to record the statements of witnesses ?
12. So far as the authority to collect evidence is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to that. However, the only question which is involved is as to whether the notified Officer/Investigator will have the same jurisdiction of Investigating Officer which has been provided under Cr.P.C/BNSS. When a specific question was put to Shri Tomar, then he fairly conceded that Investigator can collect evidence but could not justify under what authority of law, the Investigator can record statements of witnesses and what would be the effect of such investigation report.
13. So far as the examination of witnesses is concerned, in absence of any authority with the Investigator, this Court is of considered opinion that Investigator cannot record statements. However, in order to verify the correctness of the accident, if he tries to collect evidence from the record and on the basis of the same, submits his report alleging that accident is a forged one, then such a report will have no sanctity in the eye of law because it cannot be treated as a judgment. Furthermore, opinion of a witness/Investigator cannot be treated as relevant for the purposes of deciding claim petitions because he is not an expert. Furthermore, consequences of report submitted by Investigator are itself mentioned in Rule 25 of the Rules of 2022. As per Rule 25, it is clear that in case if accident is found to be incorrect then a report shall be given to DCP and Insurance Company shall be entitled to collect call detail record of the driver of ill-fated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 5 MA-7964-2025 vehicle. Thus, at the most, report of Investigator can be used for making an application to DCP for supply of call details record of driver of ill-fated vehicle.
14. The Insurance Company has examined Shri Dinesh Gupta (DW1) as Investigator and has examined Bahadur Singh Dangi as DW2. By referring to evidence of Dinesh Gupta (DW1), it is submitted by counsel for appellant that Dinesh Gupta was appointed as Investigator, but he fairly conceded that order by which he was appointed as Investigator has not been placed on record. Furthermore, Shri Dinesh Gupta (DW1) has not filed any document with regard to his qualifications to conduct an investigation. According to Shri Dinesh Gupta, he had visited the spot and conducted an investigation. He tried to record the statements of nearby residents, but none of them was able to disclose registration number of the ill-fated Bus. In the investigation report, Shri Dinesh Gupta has mentioned that he had investigated from Smt. Rama Gupta, driver Laxman Dohre, owner of the Bus Shri Rakesh Rai and witness Devidayal, but none of them disclosed the number of ill fated Bus. However, Shri Dinesh Gupta relied upon a video uploaded by some unknown person on the Youtube channel in which, according to Shri Dinesh Gupta registration number of ill-fated Bus was visible, as well as, has relied upon a news published in newspaper. Shri Dinesh Gupta (DW1) has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know as to who had video-graphed the video and uploaded the same on Youtube. Thus, the very source of video-clip which has been uploaded on Youtube has not been proved by the Insurance Company. Unless and until the person who had shot the video-clip of the ill-fated Bus and had uploaded the same on Youtube is examined and the memory card in which said video was saved is produced, it cannot be said that the video uploaded on Youtube channel by some unknown person was primary evidence. So far as the news published in newspaper is concerned, again the Insurance Company has not examined the correspondent who had clicked the photograph and who had got the news published in the newspaper. Even the Editor of the newspaper or anybody from the newspaper was not summoned by the Insurance Company in support of the newspaper on which reliance was placed. Thus, it is clear that the Insurance Company has miserably failed in discharging its duty to establish that accident was caused by Bus No. MP32-P-0791 and not by Bus No.MP32-P-0184. A specific question was also put to Shri Dinesh Gupta with regard to his authority to conduct an investigation, but he simply replied that Insurance Company can get the matter investigated. He further admitted in paragraph 9 of his cross-examination that he has not filed any document to show that he has ever taken any training for conducting investigation. He admitted that fees is paid by Insurance Company for carrying out investigation, but denied the suggestion that since he was paid by the Insurance Company, therefore, he has submitted a false report. Dinesh Gupta has also admitted that he is not an eye-witness of the accident. He also Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 6 MA-7964-2025 admitted in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination that he does not know as to how and under what circumstances the accident took place. He further stated in the same paragraph that his enquiry report is based on photographs. At the cost of repetition, it is once again clarified that neither photographs were clicked by Dinesh Gupta nor the person who had clicked the photograph was ever examined by the Insurance Company. Furthermore, Dinesh Gupta (D.W.1) had conducted the investigation after two months of the accident. Therefore the enquiry/investigation report given by Shri Dinesh Gupta has no sanctity in the eye of law and it cannot be said to be relevant for any purposes, as it is based on inadmissible evidence.
15. Insurance Company has also examined Bahadur Singh Dangi as DW2. According to the Insurance Company, the ill-fated Bus had turned turtle in the field of Bahadur Singh Dangi. Insurance Company has relied upon the affidavit of Bahadur Singh Dangi taken by the Insurance Company as Ex.D/10. This affidavit was sworn by Bahadur Singh Dangi on 13/5/2025. It is made clear that this affidavit was not filed under Order 18 Rule 4, CPC, but it was filed as a document. In this affidavit, it is mentioned that the accident took place with the Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0791. When this affidavit was sworn is also highly disputed because initially some other date was typed on the affidavit and later on it was changed as 13/5/2025 by writing in hand. Even the date of swearing-in of this affidavit before the Notary is also under doubt because the Notary has also changed the date of notarization of this affdiavit and the said manipulation/correction done by the Notary does not contain his short signatures.
16. Be that whatever it may be.
17. Bahadur Singh Dangi was examined as DW2. Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) in his examination-in-chief did not disclose the number of ill-fated Bus. In cross-examination, he claimed that the field belongs to him, but he has not brought any revenue document to show that. He further admitted that his standing crop had got damaged which was informed by him to Police, but he did not take any action in that regard. Although Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) had claimed himself to be the eye-witness of incident, but as already pointed out, he had not disclosed in his examinaton-in- chief that the registration number of Bus which had turned turtle was MP32-P-0791 and not MP32-P-0184. He further expressed his ignorance in paragraph 6 that what was the name of the lawyer who had prepared the affidavit which he had filed as Ex.D/10. He further admitted that he had not received any summon to appear as a witness, but claimed that he has appeared as a witness for the Insurance Company. Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) was examined and cross-examined on 13/5/2025 i.e. that date on which affidavit (Ex.D/10) was filed. So far as reliability of this witness is concerned, it is not out of place to mention here that Dinesh Gupta (DW1) has never mentioned in his report that he had ever talked to Bahadur Singh Dangi in whose field the ill-fated Bus had turned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 7 MA-7964-2025 turtle. Therefore, it is clear that Dinesh Gupta (DW1), who was investigating the matter on behalf of Insurance Company, did not think it appropriate to collect information even from the owner of the field. Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) remained in hibernation and he woke up only on 13/5/2025 when his affidavit (Ex.D/10) was filed. Whatever has been mentioned by Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) in his affidavit with regard to registration number of the ill-fated Bus cannot be relied upon because he has not stated in his evidence that the registration number of the ill-fated Bus was MP32-P-0791. The change in the date of affidavit Ex. D.10, clearly shows that the said affidavit was earlier prepared but could not be got notarized might be because no non-availability of Bahadur Singh Dangi (D.W.2). Thus what ever was mentioned in the affdiavit, Ex. D.10 was not the version of Bahadur Singh Dangi (D.W.2) but it was the version of Insurance Company who got the affidavit typed behind the back of Bahadur Singh Dangi (D.W.2). Further more, no summons was received by Bahadur Singh Dangi (D.W.2) to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 13- 5-2025, but as he appeard as a witness for Insurance Company, therefore, it is clear that Bahadur Singh Dangi (D.W.2) was a created and tutored witenss by the Insurance Company. If Bahadur Singh Dangi (D.W.2) had witnessed the accident, then he could have taken photograph of the ill fated bus from his mobile, but even that was not done by him. Since, the investigator had not contacted Bahadur Singh Dangi at the time of his inspection, therefore, it is clear that even investigator was aware of the fact that Bahadur Singh Dangi doesnot know anything about the accident.
18. Under these circumstances, not only Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) appears to be a pocket witness brought by the Insurance Company to depose on its behalf, but before producing him before the Claims Tribunal as a witness they also obtained his affidavit and filed it as Ex.D/10 so that Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) is left with no other option but to stick to what has been mentioned in affidavit (Ex.D/10). Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that even Bahadur Singh Dangi (DW2) is not a reliable witness and the conduct of the Inusrance Company in producing a tutored witness is depecrated.
19. So far as question of registration number of ill-fated Bus is concerned, it is next contended by counsel for appellant that Police had also not conducted investigation in a proper manner because it is clear from the crime details form which was prepared on 9/11/2022 at 10 AM, Ex. P/5 registration number of ill fated Bus was not mentioned. Even in the seizure memo, Ex. P. 23, registration number of ill-fated Bus was not mentioned. Therefore, it is clear that the Police was helping out the owner of ill-fated Bus to avoid payment of compensation on account of its non insurance. As already pointed out, it was submitted by counsel for appellant that it is an admitted fact that ill fated Bus No. MP32-P- 0791 was uninsured. This submission made by counsel for appellant that Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was an uninsured Bus was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 8 MA-7964-2025 vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents and it was submitted by counsel for respondents that they have never admitted that Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was uninsured Bus.
20. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties with regard to non insurance of Bus No. MP32-P-0791.
21. Counsel for appellant fairly conceded that appellant has not filed any document either from the RTO Office or from any other source to show that Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was an uninsured Bus. Thus, it is clear that the submission made by Shri Tomar that it is an admitted position that Bus bearing registration number MP32- P-0791 was an uninsured one was false even on the face of the record.
22. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that since owner of the ill-fated Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0791 had not filed copy of Insurance policy, therefore, appellant has drawn an inference that Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was an uninsured one.
23. The aforesaid submission made by counsel for appellant is incorrect and contrary to law. The appellant was aware of the fact that who is the owner of Bus No. MP32-P-0791 and in spite of that owner of Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was never summoned by the Insurance Company. Since owner of Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was not party to claim petition, therefore, it was not for the claimants to prove that Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0791 was an insured Bus. It was the defence of insurance company and burden to prove the defence of insurance company cannot be shifted to the claimants to prove that Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0791 was an insured bus. Presumptions and surmises which are being drawn by Insurance Company are contrary to law and they want to tie a cart before a horse which is not permissible. Thus, it is clear that Insurance Company was contesting the case on the basis of self imaginary facts and in furtherance of that impression, a submission was also made by counsel for appellant that it is an admitted fact that Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0791 was an uninsured Bus. Therefore, submission made by Insurance Company that it is an admitted fact that Bus No. MP32-P-0791 was an uninsured Bus is false and contrary to law. The Advocates are always treated to be an officer of the Court, and therefore, it is always expected that a Lawyer would not make any false and misleading statement, but in the present case, it appears that Shri Tomar was dancing to the tunes of the appellant, and went to the extent of making false statement, knowing fully well that he has no foundation for making such statement. This, conduct of Shri Tomar was not like that of an officer of the Court and accordingly it is expected that Shri Tomar would improve his conduct and would stop making false and irresponsible submissions before the Court.
24. So far as dishonest intention attributed by Insurance Company to the Police Officers is concerned, the Insurance Company did not summon any Police Officer/ any Officer who had investigated the crime as a witness, to establish its submission. No one can be criticized without giving any opportunity. Although Insurance Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 9 MA-7964-2025 Company had an opportunity to summon the Police Officers to establish that Police Officers were negligent in discharging their duties and they deliberately did not mention registration number of the ill-fated Bus either in the crime details form (Ex. P/5) or in the seizure memo (Ex.P/23) but the same was not done. Accordingly, it is held that opinion formed by Insurance Company that Police Officers were negligent is self developed opinion which has no legs to stand. Furthermore, the ill-fated Bus was mechanically examined on the very next date of the accident and as per inspection report (Ex. P/47), the Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0184 was found to be in a damaged condition. It is not the case of Insurance Company that mechanical inspection report which was filed along with the charge-sheet was false and it was concocted by the mechanic in connivance with owner of the so called Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0791.
25. Although it is not required to be mentioned but during the course of arguments it was also submitted by counsel for appellant that sometimes false cases are created and uninsured vehicles are substituted by insured vehicles. A general statement made by counsel for Insurance Company is not to be addressed by this Court and each and every case has to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
26. In the present case, as per Rule 25 of the Rules of 2022, the Insurance Company was entitled to call for CDR of the driver of Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0791 as well as Bus bearing registration number MP32-P-0184, but admittedly the Insurance Company did not take any step in that regard. Therefore, whatever opportunity was available with the Insurance Company was never exhausted by them and they have fought the case on their self imagination and that too based on report submitted by Investigator submitted on the basis of inadmissible evidence, who admittedly had no training to conduct investigation and even there is nothing on record to show that Shri Dinesh Gupta (DW1) was ever appointed as Investigator by the Insurance Company.
27. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal did not commit any mistake by holding that accident did take place with Bus No. MP32-P-0184 and not Bus No. MP32-P-0791, as claimed by the Insurance Company.
28. No other argument was advanced by the Counsel for the Appellant.
29. For the reasons mentioned above, the Award dated 30/6/2025 passed by III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Datia in Claim Case No.75/2023, is hereby affirmed.
30. Revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed."
6. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed in the light of order passed in C.R. No.1065/2025 and the Award dated 30/6/2025 passed by III Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11328 10 MA-7964-2025 Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Datia in MACC No.76/2023 is hereby affirmed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 08-04-2026 17:45:29