IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

ON THE 28 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023

MISC. APPEAL No. 2061 of 2017

BETWEEN:-

• 1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILLAGE KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR PURANI KALI MANDIR, P.S. MOTINAGAR, SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 2. GAURAV S/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, VILL. KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR PURANI KALI MANDIR, P.S. MOTINAGAR, SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 3. SHAILENDRA S/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, VILL. KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR PURANI KALI MANDIR, P.S. MOTINAGAR, SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 4. SACHIN S/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, VILL. KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR PURANI KALI MANDIR, P.S. MOTINAGAR, SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 5. SMT. IMRATIBAI, W/O LATE KASHIRAM YADAV, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, VILL. KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR PURANI KALI MANDIR, P.S. MOTINAGAR, SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI S.D. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. DEVENDRA SAHU S/O KASHIRAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O SANJAY NAGAR, DEVRI, P.S. DEVRI DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)

• 2. DEVENDRA SAHU, S/O SURAJ PRASAD SAHU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O DAYANAND WARD, SAGAR, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, GUJRATI BAZAR, SAGAR, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(NONE)

MISC. APPEAL No. 2078 of 2017

BETWEEN:-

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THR. ITS MANAGER, BRANCH MANAGER GUJRATI BAZAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND

• 1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR OLD KALI TEMPLE, THANA MOTINAGAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 2. GAURAV S/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD NEAR OLD KALI TEMPLE, THANA MOTINAGAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 3. SHAILENDRA S/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR OLD KALI TEMPLE, THANA MOTINAGAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 4. SACHIN S/O LATE RAMPRASAD YADAV, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O KAKAGANJ BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD NEAR OLD KALI TEMPLE, THANA MOTINAGAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
• Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2023.03.01 17:56:05 IST SAN Signature Not Verified
• 5. SMT. IMARTIBAI, W/O LATE KASHIRAM YADAV, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O KAKAGANJ

BAGHRAJ MARG PANTNAGAR WARD, NEAR OLD KALI TEMPLE, THANA MOTINAGAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

• 6. DEVENDRA SAHU S/O KASHIRAM SAHU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O SANJAY NAGAR, DEVRI, THANA DEVRI, DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
• 7. DEVENDRA SAHU, S/O SURAJ PRASAD SAHU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O DAYANAND WARD, SAGAR, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI S.D. MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4)

This appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e court passed the following:

ORDER

These appeals are filed respectively by the claimants and insurance company. Being aggrieved of award dated 18/05/2017 passed by VIIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar in Claim Case no.3900180/2016 on the ground that it's a case of false implication of the offending vehicle insured with the National Insurance Company.

2. Learned counsel for the insurance company drawing attention of this Court to Exhibit P/3 which is dehati merg intimation points out that the author of dehati merg intimation Gaurav Yadav has categorically mentioned that his father Shri Ramprasad had left their house on motorcycle MP-15-MA-0659 on 20/4/2016 at about 7 a.m. His brother Shailendra Yadav had a talk with his father when it was informed that in Sihora, his father had met with an accident on Garhpahra bypass road. Then informant Gaurav and his brother Shailendra had reached Garhpahra mod on their motorcycle when they found that some unknown vehicle had caused accident. On the spot, Pappu Chaubey, Kamal Yadav (Chacha) had reached.

3. On the basis of said intimation, first information report was recorded on 21/4/2016.

4. It is pointed out that after a month with a view to plant a vehicle, two witnesses namely Kamal Yadav, S/o Kashiram Yadav and Manish Yadav, S/o Nand Kishore Yadav were planted. It is submitted that their conduct is unnatural. Kamal Yadav has admitted in his cross examination that deceased Ramprasad was his brother. He was present at the time of the recording of the merg intimation, if, he would have seen the incident, he would have reported this fact to the police at the time of recording of the merg intimation, Exhibit P/3. Therefore, it is evident that he is a planted witness and not an eye witness.

5. Similarly, Manish Yadav has admitted in his cross examination that deceased was his mausa. He had informed number of the offending vehicle to Shri Gaurav and thereafter, Gaurav had gone to Police Station Cantt to lodge a report. He further admits in cross examination that he had not stopped at the place of the incidence after the accident had taken place therefore, he cannot say that whether any seizure was made from the place of the incident or not. His conduct is unnatural. On the one hand he admits that Ramprasad was his mausa. He further mentioned that when he was returning to his home from village Munthi on his motorcycle then at Garhpahra tri junction transport vehicle MP-15-LA-1318 had hit Ramprasad. As a result of which Ramprasad died on the spot. Two things are evident from this affidavit one he knew that Ramprasad was traveling and he saw the accident taking place and noted the number of the offending vehicle but the fact is that if he was aware of the fact that Ramprasad had met with an accident then by virtue of his relationship that being of a mausa, his conduct becomes unnatural that he did not staty at the place of the accident.

6. Second contradiction is that when he had given information to Gaurav, who is the author of the F.I.R. before he had started to visit Thana Cantt to lodge report then omission to not to mention number of the vehicle is surprising and is a glaring omission which could not be explained by the claimants and therefore, claimants themselves have failed to prove their case and involvement of the vehicle insured with the appellant, National Insurance Company there was no need for the insurance company to lead any extra evidence in their support. Since claimants failed to prove their case, claim petition should have been dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

7. Miscellaneous Appeal No.2078/2017 is allowed and claim Appeal that is M.A.No.2061/2017 is dismissed.

8. Since claim Appeal i.e.M.A.No.2061/2017 is dismissed by holding that it is a case of false implication of the vehicle, claim in toto deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

9. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

m/-