Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriyantal Insorance Com. Ltd. Thr. vs Rajkumari Aadiwasi on 17 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6108
1 MA-3808-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 17 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 3808 of 2017
THE ORIYANTAL INSORANCE COM. LTD. THR.
Versus
RAJKUMARI AADIWASI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri Vinay Kumar-Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Member, Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 400005/2016.
2. The appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the case and, therefore, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2014 at about 8:00 p.m., near Block AB Road, Badarwas, District Shivpuri, the deceased Dinesh was riding his bicycle when the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-33-C-1942, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.4, dashed against the bicycle. As a result of the accident, Dinesh sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Initially, marg intimation (Ex.P/1) and FIR were lodged against an unknown Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 2/19/2026 11:00:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6108 2 MA-3808-2017 vehicle. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against driver of offending vehicle.
4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants thereafter filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed its written statement. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle also filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.
6. The Claims Tribunal framed issues and, after recording evidence of the parties, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that since the marg intimation and FIR were initially lodged against an unknown vehicle and the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also referred to an unknown vehicle, the subsequent implication of the offending vehicle after about two months creates doubt. It is submitted that the vehicle was falsely implicated to claim compensation and, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
10. It is not in dispute that the marg intimation (Ex.P/1) and FIR were initially registered against an unknown vehicle. However, during investigation, the police arrested the driver of the offending vehicle, seized the vehicle and filed a charge-sheet against him.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 2/19/2026 11:00:05 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6108 3 MA-3808-2017
11. Significantly, the appellant/Insurance Company itself filed an investigation report (Ex.D/6) prepared by its investigator. In the said report, the statement of Sheelveer Singh, brother-in-law (Jija) of the owner of the offending vehicle, was recorded. In paragraph 2 of his statement, he admitted that on 14.09.2014, he along with his brother-in-law Harveer Singh and the driver were going to attend a (wedding) when a cyclist suddenly came in front of their car and the collision occurred.
12. Thus, from the investigation report produced by the Insurance Company itself, it is evident that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident stands established.
13. The Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and has awarded just compensation to the claimants.
14. This Court finds that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are based on evidence available on record and do not suffer from perversity or illegality.
15. No ground for interference is made out in this appeal.
16. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 2/19/2026 11:00:05 AM