[2025:RJ-JP:16927] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1759/2015 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. having its local office at Office No.2, Third Floor, C-99, Singhvi Upasana Tower, Shubhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, having its regional office at N-22, Second Floor, Section-18, Noida-201301 through its constituted attorney. ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Smt Prasann Devi W/o Gordhan, aged about 34 years, R/o Nathmalpura, Teh. Phagi, District Jaipur. 2. Suresh S/o Kaluram, R/o Chandma Kalan, Teh. Phagi, District Jaipur (Driver of Motorcycle No.RJ-14-CS-7127) 3. Mohruram S/o Kaluram, R/o Chandma Kalan, Teh. Phagi, District Jaipur (Owner of Motorcycle No.RJ-14-CS-7127) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Swami HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/04/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that service of notices upon respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are proforma respondents may be dispense with. 2. At the request of counsel for the appellant, service of notices upon respondent Nos.2 and3, is dispensed with, hence, service is complete. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is being heard on merits. 4. Present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-HDFC ERGO General [2025:RJ-JP:16927] (2 of 6) [CMA-1759/2015] Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred as "Insurance Company") against the award dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur whereby the claim petition of the respondent No.1 has been allowed and a sum of Rs.1,15,500/- has been awarded on account of injuries sustained by her in the road accident. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of loss suffered by her due to injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 03.02.2011. As per the averments of the claim, the respondent No.1-Smt. Prasann Devi was waiting for bus at Bus Stand and suddenly a motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-CS-7127 which was being driven by Suresh rashly and negligently hit the respondent No.1 and due to said accident she sustained injuries and she was immediately taken to the nearby Dhanvantari Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur for treatment. Thus, the respondent No.1 filed the claim petition with a prayer to grant compensation. The said claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company primarily on the ground that the FIR has been filed with a delay of about nine days as such the involvement of motorcycle is appears to be false and the appellant contended that the motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-CS-7127 does not met with an accident and it was further stated that the injury suffered due to her own fault/ due to negligency of unidentified vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed following issues:- [2025:RJ-JP:16927] (3 of 6) [CMA-1759/2015] "1- vk;k fnukad 03-02-11 dks 12-30 ih-,e ds yxHkx cl LVS.M gFksyh eksM ij Fkkuk Qkxh ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa vizkFkhZ de&,d us eksVjlkbfdy uEcj vkj ts 14 lh,l 7127 dks vizkFkhZ dze&nks ds fu;kstu esa rstxfr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj izkFkhZ;k izlUu nsoh ds VDdj ekjdj pksVxzLr fd;kA 2- vk;k chek daiuh }kjk izLrqr izR;qRrj esa mBk;h x;h vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Dyse chek daiuh ds fo#) [kkfjt ;ksX; gSA 3- vk;k izkFkhZ;k {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn gka rks jkf'k D;k gksxh ,oa fdl vizkFkhZ ls olwyh ;ksX; gksxhA 4- vuqrks"kA " 6. The respondent-claimant in order to substantiate the claim petition examined herself as AW-1, AW2-Ramdhan and AW3- Shaktisingh further exhibited documents from Ex.1 to Ex.81. 7. The Insurance company in order to convert the averments of the claim petition and the evidence so adduced examined NAW-1 Ravi Gupta and produced reports Ex.NA1 and Ex. NA2. 8. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding all the issues against the insurance company has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,15,500/- while taking note of the fact that the claimant was 30 years age lady and she sustained bodily injuries in a motor accident dated 03.02.2011. 9. The the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the present case motorcycle in question bearing No.RJ-14- CS-7127 has been falsely implicated and the accident was not occurred with the said motorcycle and the injuries sustained by the claimant due to her own negligence or by unidentified vehicle as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted that there is a delay of 9 days [2025:RJ-JP:16927] (4 of 6) [CMA-1759/2015] in lodging of the FIR as such involvement of the vehicle is again doubtful, therefore, the impugned award is perverse and liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after due examination of the averments of the claim and evidence so adduced more particularly the evidence of deceased injured AW-1 Smt. Prasann Devi, AW2-Ramdhan and eye witness AW3- Shaktisingh has arrived to the conclusion that it is not a case of false implication of vehicle. On the contrary, the injured was waiting for the bus at bus stand on 03.02.2011 and the motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-CS-7127 is being driven by Suresh rashly and negligently hit the injured and, therefore, she sustained injuries and the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. A bare perusal to the findings of issue No.1, it is evident that the respondent injured very categorically explained the factum of accident and involvement of the vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-CS-7127 she further stated that immediately after the accident she was taken to the Dhanvantari Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 13. Similarly, other witness namely Ramdhan has supported the version of the injured and submitted that on account of the accident dated 03.02.2011 the injured Prasann Devi sustained serious injuries and immediately after the accident she was taken [2025:RJ-JP:16927] (5 of 6) [CMA-1759/2015] to the Dhanvantari Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur where the injured hospitalized for 21 days. 14. Apart from above two witnesses, the eye witness AW-3 Shaktisingh also proved the fact that the injured sustained injuries on account of road accident dated 03.02.2011 from the motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-CS-7127. 15. Apart from the oral evidence, document produced on record it is evident that the FIR was lodged and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against Suresh and in response to the notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicles Act he has admitted that he was driving the vehicle when accident took place. 16. From the evidence on record, it is well proved that injured sustained injuries on account of road accident by motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-CS-7127. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was falsly implicated and injured sustained injuries due to her own negligence cannot be accepted. 17. Other contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was lodged with a delay of nine days which caused doubt about the happening of the incident. This delay part has also been explained by the claimant and his witnesses, they have stated that the injured sustained injuries and immediately she was taken to the Dhanvantari Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur she remain admitted for 21 days, therefore, the FIR could not be filed on that very day and the same was filed after nine days but after the investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the owner of the vehicle Suresh which fortifies the involvement of the vehicle. [2025:RJ-JP:16927] (6 of 6) [CMA-1759/2015] 18. In view of the findings awarded by the Court below I am of the opinion that the impugned order is just and proper and does not suffer from any perversity and does not call any interference by this Court. 19. In view of above, appeal filed by the Insurance Company lacks merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 20. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /15