-1- P4-WP-14340-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14340 OF 2025 THE BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS PRADNYA RAKESH KAWAD (JAIN) AND OTHERS ...… Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Kailas B. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ...… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2026. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner takes exception to order dated 09.09.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna in M.A.C.P. No.138 of 2019 below Exh.101, whereby petitioner’s application for issuing witness summons to Dr. Kishor Dange Patil from Hirai Hospital and Critical Care Hospital Center, has been rejected. 2. Mr. Rathi, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner points out that, although this Court had specifically granted liberty in favour of petitioner to file application for postponing the proceedings pending before the Tribunal, now the Tribunal is not considering said request and has posted the matter for hearing. 2026:BHC-AUG:24242 -2- P4-WP-14340-2025 3. In light of aforesaid factual background, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of parties. 4. Mr. Rathi submits that, petitioner – Insurance Company has took up a defence of false implication of insured vehicle. The case of claimant is based on statement of injured pillion rider, namely Rupesh Kawad. He stated to have suffered injuries and treated in Hirai Hospital and Critical Care Hospital Center. During course of investigation by Insurance Company, it was revealed that there is no record regarding treatment of said Rupesh in hospital as mentioned in his police statement. With intention to bring variance on aforesaid aspect, an application was moved before Tribunal to issue witness summons to Dr. Kishor Dange Patil from Hirai Hospital and Critical Care Hospital Center, which came to be rejected. 5. On perusal of record, this court finds substance in contentions of Mr. Rathi. In a case of false implication of vehicle, it is necessary to bring on record circumstances that may lead to a conclusion in pursuance to the defence. The Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to Insurance Company to at least examine the witness on the relevant aspect of matter. The injury certificate of Rupesh is placed on record of the Tribunal, which shows that he was treated for accidental -3- P4-WP-14340-2025 injuries in Hirai Hospital and Critical Care Hospital Center. The Insurance Company has a serious objection as to the genuineness of aforesaid certificate so also the statement of said witness given before police. In this backdrop, this Court finds that the Tribunal committed serious error in declining to accept petitioner’s prayer for issuance of witness summons. Hence, Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). 6. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Tandale