Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rooplal Uike on 25 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 25 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 1872 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR.
BRANCH MANAGER, PARASIA ROAD, CHHINDEWARA
(MP), (INSURANCE COMPANY) THROUGH DEPUTY
MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, TP HUB 1561, NAPIER TOWN, DR. BARAT
ROAD, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJIT AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ROOPLAL UIKE S/O MALFVEER UIKE, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE KHAMEEHIRA, TAAH
AMARWADA, DISTT. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MALVEER UIKE S/O VIKRAM UIKE, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, VILLAGE KHAMEEHIRA TAHSIL
AMARWADA , DISTT. CHHINDWARA(MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NETRAM MARSAKOLE S/O UMMILAL
M A R S A K O LE RATAMATI PS AND TAHSIL
HARRAI, DISTT. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.R. VERMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the insurance company being Signature Not Verified aggrieved of award dated 28/03/2017 passed by learned Additional Member, Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 10/25/2023 3:08:25 PM 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amarwada, Distt. Chhindwara in Claim Case No.25/2015 on the two grounds; namely, FIR was lodged after 11 days of the incident and secondly witness who was examined before the Tribunal namely Rooplal admitted in his cross-examination that he is a hearsay witness and he was informed about the accident having taken place with the offending vehicle.
2. Shri M.R. Verma, learned counsel for the claimants, supports the impugned award.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, FIR was lodged 11 days after the incident, it is against a named vehicle, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR being just 11 days, accident took place on 26/5/2014 then FIR was lodged on 05/06/2014 against tracks vehicle No.MP 26 BD 0551, deceased Devilal died on 26/5/2014 and thereafter report was lodged on 05/06/2014, that delay alone is not so fatal as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, (2011) 4 SCC 693 to discredit the story of the claimants.
4. It is true that he is not an eye witness but at the same time insurance company did not discharge its burden by examining the I.O. of the case as to how they had collected the number of the offending vehicle. There is no protest application on behalf of the owner, driver of the offending vehicle to cause dispute in regard to his involvement, therefore, when all these facts are examined, there is no infirmity in the impugned award calling for interference.
5. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
6. Shri Verma, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, submits that there was a direction to make a Fixed Deposit Receipt of the awarded Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 10/25/2023 3:08:25 PM 3 compensation in favour of the claimants, but it is languishing in the account of learned Claims tribunal.
7. It is direction is slightly modified and it is directed that the amount of compensation be invested in a monthly income scheme of the Indian Post Office or in a Nationalized Bank in the name of the claimants for a period of ten years so that principle amount along with accrued interest shall remain intact and the claimants will be entitled to utilize its monthly interest for their well being and maintenance.
8. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 10/25/2023 3:08:25 PM