UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. LEELA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters arise out of the same accident. As three different claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) and therefore, the MACT has passed a common award in these three claim cases and since the claim awarded in two cases was less than Rs.1.00 lakh, therefore, the revisions have been filed in two cases whereas, the claim in death case has been subjected to challenge in MA number 1395 of 2024.

(2.) The counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in all these cases has vehemently argued before this court that the impugned award passed by the MACT is erroneous because it is a clear case of false implication of the vehicle and in such a case of false implication of vehicle, the MACT ought not to have allowed the claim petition and ought not to have passed award of compensation in favour of the claimants/respondents.

(3.) The counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the date of accident is stated to be 19/6/2019 and as per FIR of the accident, three persons were riding the motorcycle which were the deceased Dashrath Patel along with the injured Rohit Chadar and Mukesh Chadar. As per the FIR version which has been lodged on 20/6/2019, it has been mentioned therein that their motorcycle was dashed by an unknown white colour pickup vehicle leading to the right side of the deceased Dashrath Patel being badly damaged and other injuries to injured Rohit and Mukesh. The deceased Dashrath Patel expired while on way to District Hospital Sagar. It is argued that in the FIR, the vehicle is stated to be unknown white colour pickup vehicle, whereas ultimately the vehicle that has been implicated in the accident is an Ape Loader vehicle that too, though is of white colour, but in the registration particulars, its colour is shown to be yellow and the said vehicle was then seized on 12/9/2019. It is stated that as per the case diary statements of the injured Mukesh (Exhibit D-1), he has been informed the registration number of vehicle by one Ashok Pratap, son of Anand Singh Patel but the said Ashok Pratap has not been examined as witness on behalf of the claimants. It is further argued that there are two eye witnesses of the incident, namely injured Mukesh and Rohit. It is argued that the injured person Rohit who had also made similar type of statement as Exhibit D-3 has admitted that the spot map was prepared by the police and therefore, once the spot map has been prepared by the police and also that he has admitted that his statement was taken by the police on the next day of the date of accident, then there was no reason that why the vehicle was seized after 3 months and it is a case of false implication.