Parwat Rao Likhitkar vs Ku.Deepa & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 14780 MP

                           - 1 -


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                AT JABALPUR

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
         ON THE 8TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
               MISC. APPEAL No. 1173 of 2004


  Between :-
  PARWAT RAO LIKHITKAR         AGED
  ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/ O OF SHYAMRAO,
  KUMBI, R/O SAWANGI (AADHNER),
  TEH. BHAISDEHI DISTT. BETUL.
  (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                     ...APPELLANT
  (BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK- ADVOCATE)

  AND

  1.   KU.DEEPA & ORS (MADHYA
  PRADESH) MINOR AGED -03 YEARS
  D/O RAM PD. S/O KISHANLAL SAHU,
  AGED    ABOUT     30 YEARS,  R/O
  AATHNER,     TEHSIL-   BHAISDEHI,
  DISTT. BETUL/M.P.


  2.   PRADEEP ALIAS PRAVEEN S/O
  SHRI    BARIKRAO      BALBANDE
  CHAKRAVARTY MOHAILA AATHNER,
  AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, TEHSIL
  BHAISDEHI (MADHYA PRADESH


  3.   INSURANCE COMPANY NEW
  INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. THROUGH
  -BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA
  INSURANCE CO. LTD. (MADHYA
  PRADESH)


                                   ....RESPONDENTS
                                            - 2 -


          (BY DINESH KAUSHAL                       -   ADVOCATE           FOR
          RESPONDENT NO. 3 )



          Reserved on - 23.08.2023
          Delivered on - 08. 09.2023
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          This misc. appeal coming on for hearing this day, Justice
       AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, passed the following:


                                   JUDGMENT

This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant Parvat Rao who was non applicant No.2 (owner of vehicle) before the Claims Tribunal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 15.03.2004 in claim Case No. 107/2003 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal at Betul.

2. In short, respondent No.1 through her father filed the claim application with regard to the accident dated 10.03.2003 that when she was playing, respondent No. 2 Pradeep while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed against her resulting injury on the right toe of leg. Thereafter it was imputed after operation. She had to remain in hospital.

3. The case of the appellant before the claims Tribunal was that his Motorcycle was taken by respondent No.2 without the permission of appellant. Therefore, appellant is not responsible for compensation.

- 3 -

4. Appeal has been filed on the ground that liability has been fixed only on the appellant as the vehicle was taken by respondent No.2 but without his knowledge. Permanent disability is not approved. There is no fracture, amputation was due to infection.

5. Only 10% disability has been assessed by the Tribunal. Award is on higher side. Rs. 14,000/- for the ugliness has been wrongly awarded because disability is on the toe, therefore prays for setting aside the award.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Question before this Court is whether award of the learned Claims Tribunal can be set aside or modified?

8. Before the Claims Tribunal father of the claimant Ram Prasad has deposed. In the cross examination there is nothing on the basis of which it can be said that claim has been falsely filed. Applicant witness No. 2 Rajesh has supported the incident as an eye witness. Appellant/non applicant No.2 in his statement has said that while he was in a shop his motorcycle was kept outside when he came out of the shop he found that his motorcycle was not there. He informed the police who asked him that if his motorcycle is not found then to report the matter then suddenly he came to know that an accident has taken place by his motorcycle. In cross examination he has denied that motorcycle was taken by his consent by Pradeep. In para 4 he has admitted that he has not lodged a report in police station regarding the theft of his motorcycle.

9. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation after considering all the facts and has disbelieved the story of theft in Para 8 of the award. Learned Tribunal in para 12 of the award on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties has held that the person who

- 4 -

caused the accident i.e. non applicant No.1 Pradeep did not have a valid license to drive the vehicle, therefore motorcycle at the time of accident was being driven in breach of Insurance Policy and accordingly made an order for pay and recover which is correct and filed as regarding the amount of compensation the amount is not excessive, proper and reasonable, therefore, no ground is exixsts to interfere in the quantum of amount.

10. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Akanksha

AKANKSH Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=JABALPUR,

A 2.5.4.20=249af511aff03adb5e1023e836f6223d d6fcc17fe5560a49be80567d4ab381a9, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=08FDD0FD574AF6278257F149F 3D11B8DF5BC8C51B2811BAF3E9439DD98282

MAURYA D77, cn=AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 2023.09.11 10:34:48 +05'30'