Madhya Pradesh High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Roshan on 31 October, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
1 CR-141-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1151 of 2012
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURACNE COM. LTD.
Versus
SMT.RAMDULARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for the claimant.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION No. 139 of 2012
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
GAURAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Upendra Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prashant
Sharma- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
CIVIL REVISION No. 140 of 2012
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
RAJBHADUR SHAKYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant.
2 CR-141-2012
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Upendra Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prashant
Sharma- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
CIVIL REVISION No. 141 of 2012
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
ROSHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Upendra Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prashant
Sharma- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
CIVIL REVISION No. 142 of 2012
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
SMT.KASHIBAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Upendra Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prashant
Sharma- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
CIVIL REVISION No. 143 of 2012
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
SMT.SUBHADRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
3 CR-141-2012
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Upendra Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prashant
Sharma- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
MISC. APPEAL No. 1154 of 2012
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURACNE COM. LTD.
Versus
KASHIRAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for the claimants.
ORDER
Heard through video conferencing.
By this common order M.A.No.1151/2012, M.A.No.1154/2012, C.R.No.139/2012, C.R.No.140/2012, C.R.No.141/2012, C.R.No.142/2012 and C.R.No.143/2012 shall also be disposed of.
2. M.A.No.1151/2012 has been filed against award dated 25/07/2012 passed by MACT Jaura, District Morena in MACC No.05/2012. M.A.No.1154/2012 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.08/2012, C.R.No.139/2012 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.15/2012, C.R.No.140/2012 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.14/2012, C.R.No.141/2012 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.13/2012, C.R.No.142/2012 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.07/2012 and C.R.No.143/2012 has been filed against award passed in MACC No.06/2012.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that all the aforesaid claim cases 4 CR-141-2012 were decided by a common award.
4. Facts necessary for disposal of all the cases, in short, are that on 31/03/2009 at about 4 PM Revati alongwith her husband and son as well as other claimants Ramdulari, Subhadra, Kashibai, Roshan, Rajbahadur, Gaurav were going on a vehicle of Spacio model bearing registration No. M.P.06-TA-0129 from village Budhera to Mata. When this vehicle reached near Shekhpur Gate, this vehicle dashed a person going on a cycle, as a result, vehicle turned turtle and fell in a ditch, as a result Revati died during treatment and other persons sustained injuries. Accordingly, multiple claim cases were filed either by legal representatives of Revati and by injured persons and as already pointed out by common award dated 25/07/2012, all claim petitions have been decided.
5. A solitary ground was raised by counsel for appellant/applicant that since, the driver of vehicle namely, Hariom Giri was not having a valid license and license which was produced by him, was fraudulently got prepared with the help of Smart Chip Company, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.
6. Per contra, counsel for claimants has supported the findings recorded by Claims Tribunal.
7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
8. Appellant had examined Dilip Kumar (D.W.2) in support of its contention that license produced by the driver was not issued on the instructions of RTO, Bhind, and it was got prepared fraudulently with the help of Smart Chip Company. Dilip Kumar (D.W.2) has admitted that the information regarding license of Hariom Giri is available on the website of Transport Department and a fee for preparation of license was also deposited, and the receipt is also visible on the computer record of RTO. It was its case that since, the physical file is not 5 CR-141-2012 found, therefore, it is clear that license is a forged document.
9. Admittedly, Dilip Kumar (D.W.2) is not an expert and if he had given any opinion about the genuineness of license, then at the most, it can be said to be an opinion of witness and has no relevance or admissibility under law. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination, it was admitted by Dilip Kumar (D.W.2) that various license which have been issued from the Office of RTO, Bhind are under scrutiny, but he denied that license of Hariom Giri/driver has also been sent for verification to Moti Mahal, Gwalior. Thus, it is clear that RTO, Bhind did not take any step for verification of genuineness of license issued in favour of Hariom Giri.
10. It was also admitted that the information and the license which has been uploaded on the website of Transport Department, is still continuing, and the license issued in favour of Hariom Giri has not been cancelled. Thus, it is clear that merely because RTO, Bhind could not trace out the physical file, then it cannot be said that license which was prepared by Smart Chip Company was without any authority or direction from RTO, Bhind. It is the duty of RTO, Bhind to maintain the record properly and if it has failed to do so, then no adverse inference can be drawn against the holder of license.
11. Under these circumstances, the solitary ground which has been raised by counsel for appellant/applicant that the license relied upon by Hariom Giri appears to be a fake license cannot be accepted. No other ground is raised by appellant/applicant.
12. Ex consequenti, award dated 25/07/2012 passed by MACT Jaura, District Morena in MACC No.05/2012, MACC No.08/2012, MACC No.15/2012, MACC No.14/2012, MACC No.13/2012, MACC No.07/2012 and MACC No.06/2012 are hereby affirmed.
6 CR-141-2012
13. In M.A.No.1151/2012 and M.A.No.1154/2012, cross-objection has been filed by claimants, but Court fee has not been paid, therefore, in absence of Court fee, cross-objection cannot be entertained, accordingly, they are dismissed.
14. Accordingly, M.A.No.1151/2012, M.A.No.1154/2012, C.R.No.139/2012, C.R.No.140/2012, C.R.No.141/2012, C.R.No.142/2012 and C.R.No.143/2012 are hereby rejected.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE PjS/-