High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
FA-3570-2019-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 3570 OF 2019Mallappa S/o. Vishwanath Swami,Age : 49 years, Occu. : Private Service, At Present Nil, R/o. Kasarshirshi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.… AppellantVersus1.Achut S/o. Baburao Jadhav @ Dhumal, Age : 49 years, Occu. : LIC Agent,R/o. Nelwad, Tq. Nilanga,Dist. Latur.(Owner – cum – driver of vehicleno. MH-24-V-0049)2.Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,“Sumitra” Near Hotel Shanti, Ambajogai Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.(Insurer of Car No. MH-24-V-0049)Policy No. 23110003113P104123465Period of Policy : 04.10.2013 to 03.10.2014Date of accident : 25.08.2014… Respondents(Orig. Respondents)…..Mr. Santosh B. Gastgar, Advocate for Appellant.Mr. S.S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.…..CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON :07 AUGUST 2025PRONOUNCED ON :13 AUGUST 2025 JUDGMENT : 1.Instant appeal invokes section 173 of Motor Vehicles Actchallenging the judgment and award passed by Member, MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Nilanga in M.A.C.P. No.07 of 2015 FA-3570-2019-2-dismissing the claim petition seeking compensation for injuriesallegedly suffered in road traffic accident dated 25.08.2014.2.Present appellant moved compensation petition byinvoking section 166 of M.V. Act on the premise that on 25.08.2014,around 4:30 p.m, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearingno. MH-05-AC-1695 over Nilanga to Kasar-Shirshi road, hismotorcycle was given dash by car bearing no. MH-24-V-0049.Because of the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disabilityand hence entitled to receive just compensation. Respondents hereinresisted the above claim disputing involvement of the very vehicleand setting up a specific plea that claim itself is false and frivolousand that insurer is not at liable to pay any compensation as prayed. Necessary issues were castes by tribunal and onanalyzing the evidence of claimant at Exh.22, documentary evidencelike FIR, compliant, panchanama at Exhs.24, 25, 26 and 27 weretaken into account. On appreciation of evidence, learned tribunalrecorded a finding that there is inordinate delay in naming offendingvehicle, secondly no evidence to suggest involvement of offendingvehicle insured by insurance company and hence finally dismissedthe petition, which is now taken exception to by way of instant appealon several grounds raised in the appeal memo.
Legal Reasoning
FA-3570-2019-3-SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS3.Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that,appellant claimant had demonstrated and established that while hewas proceeded on his motorcycle on 25.08.2014, offending vehicleinsured by insurance company, which was being driven in rash andnegligent manner, gave dash to his motorcycle as a result of which hesuffered multiple injuries on leg, head and other parts of the body. Hesuffered permanent disability. That, FIR, spot panchanama, medicalevidence / certificate were placed on record. In view of road trafficaccident, claim for compensation was made out, but the learned trialcourt has failed to consider and appreciate appellant’s case in properperspective. He pointed out that, in cases of such nature, delay is ofno much significance, but precisely it is made one of the highlightingpoint by the tribunal for doubting the claim. He pointed out that,because of injuries, claimant was required to be admitted and treatedat several hospitals. Doctors, who examined and treated, have beenexamined, and as such, refusal to consider above quality of evidencehas resulted into injustice and hence, he seeks indulgence at thehands of this court by allowing the appeal.4.Per contra, registering strong objection to the veryalleged occurrence of accident, learned counsel for respondent -insurance company would point out that, there are serious doubtsabout case set up by claimant. He took this court through the FA-3570-2019-4-observations of tribunal in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgmentand would submit that, there is correct appreciation. That, there aregood reasons to doubt the very occurrence or involvement of thealleged offending vehicle. He pointed out that, there is no promptreporting. Timings reported regarding alleged occurrence arevarying i.e. in FIR, medical papers and precisely the same has beencorrectly appreciated by the tribunal. He further pointed out that, atfirst instance report is about fall from motorcycle, and subsequentlycase is set up about fall on getting drunk. Thus, according to him,very alleged occurrence has comes under shadow of doubt and heurges to dismiss the appeal for want of merits. 5.After considering the above arguments advanced and ongoing through the papers, it is emerging that, present appellantsought compensation on account of meting an accident whileproceeding on his motorcycle on 25.08.2014 as a result of allegeddash given by car bearing MH-24-V-0049 said to be insured bypresent respondent no.2. Evidence of claimant is at Exh.22. As regards todocumentary evidence is concerned, reliance is placed on Exh.24, 25,26 and 27. Specific objection of respondents is that, said documentsare manufactured. In view of above grounds raised by respondents,above documents are visited. As submitted, in report, timing of FA-3570-2019-5-occurrence is given as 05:15 p.m. However, the very medicalcertificate Exh.27 reflects timing of examination of claimant as 3:50p.m. Therefore, obvious question that crops up is how there could bemedical examination prior to the very occurrence resulting intoinjury. There is no explanation to this extent by the appellant. Nocase of typing mistake or inadvertencies also put-forth to overcomethe above discrepancy. 6.Another distinct features which is emerging as pointedout that, in Exh. 46, page nos. 26 and 28, history of accident is givenas “fall from motorcycle” and there is no reference of dash beinggiven by any vehicle. Further history is given, “while driving home,after getting drunk, met with an accident and that patient is unableto recall the events”. Such endorsement also creates serous doubtsabout dash being given by vehicle allegedly insured by respondent –insurer. On page 28, another medical expert, who examined himnoted that, “the patient was under a drunken state, when on bike,suffered RTA and had sustained injuries”. Again, details of vehicleinvolved are not provided to the doctor. 7.Though claimant has set up a case of suffering permanentdisability due to accidental injury and to that extent PW3 medicalexpert is examined, but it appears that PW3 is not the treating doctorand he has merely issued disability certificate without treatingclaimant. FA-3570-2019-6-8.Lastly, FIR shows that report is lodged after gap of almostthree months from alleged occurrence. Faced with such situation,delay is not explained. Even the persons who allegedly shiftedinjured claimant to the hospital, are not examined. Therefore,whatever material is sought to be relied, is not worthy of credence toaccept the case of dash being given due to rash and negligent drivingat the instance of person behind the wheels of the vehicle insured byrespondent.9.To sum up, here there are serious and several doubtsregarding the very alleged occurrence dated 25.08.2014, in whichdash was said to be given by vehicle insured by respondent -insurance company. Claimant has not proved very involvement ofvehicle. Belated FIR and multiple histories reported for injury furthercontribute to the veracity of claimant’s version. 10.In the light of above discussion and on going through theimpugned judgment, this court does not find any reason to interfereas urged for. Hence, the following order is passed :ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale