Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sushma vs Heerendra Kurmi (Dadhge) on 27 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 27th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3416 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SUSHMA W/O LATE SHRI SANJEEV
STHAPAK, AGED ABOUT 36 Y E A R S , R/O
MAHRAJPUR, TEHSIL DEORI, SAGAR DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU. TRAPTI D/O LATE SHRI SANJEEV STHAPAK,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEAR S, OCCUPATION: MINOR
DAUGHTER THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN-
MOTHER SMT. SUSHMA W/O LATE SHRI SANJEEV
STHAPAK R/O MAHARAJPUR, TEHSIL DEORI,
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PARANJAL S/O LATE SANJEEV STHAPAK, AGED
ABOUT 05 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR SON
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER-SMT.
SUSHMA , W/O LATE SANJEEV R/O MAHARAJPUR,
TEHSIL DEORI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. PARABHA DEVI W/O SHRI NARAYAN
STHAPAK, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O
MAHARAJPUR, TEHSIL DEORI, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI TEEKARAM KURMI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HEERENDRA KURMI (DADHGE) S/O SHRI
BABOOLAL KURMI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O
MAHARAJPUR, TEHSIL DEORI, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH) (DRIVER)
2. ARVIND S/O MAHESH NAMA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O SAGONI POLICE STATION AND THSIL
DEORI DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(OWNER)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-05-2024
19:43:15
2
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER O/O PRADEEP COFFEE
HOUSE, KATRA WARD, SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH) (INSURANCE COMPANY)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 BY NONE INSPITE OF SERVICE)
(RESPONDENT NO.3 BY MS.DEVYANI SINGH - ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 28/02/2024
Pronounced on: 27/05/2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
passed the following:
ORDER
T his appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against impugned award dated
09.2.2022 passed by the Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Deori,
District Sagar [for short the "Tribunal"] in Claim Case No.400099/2017
[Smt.Sushma and 03 others Vs. Heerendra Kurmi and two others] whereby the
claim petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
2 . Brief facts of the case are that on 09.1.2016 deceased-Sanjeev
Sthapak, who was an advocate, was returning after Court works and was going
t o lookafter the construction of his own house situated near By-pass road.
Between 7.30 to 8.00 pm the offending vehicle (Motorcycle bearing registration
No.MP-15/MQ-2849) which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent
No.1 dashed against deceased as a result of which he sustained serious injuries.
The deceased was taken to Deori Hospital wherefrom he was referred to
Jabalpur, but on account of serious situation he was further referred to Neuron
Hospital, Nagpur and eventually he expired after 20 days during treatment at
Nagpur. The wife, children and mother of the deceased being legal heirs of
deceased filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.58 lacs on account of death of Sanjeev
Sthapak.
3 . The learned Tribunal vide impugned award held that it is not
p ro ved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
motorcycle by respondent No.1 and it is also not proved that deceased
sustained serious injuries in said accident, as a result of which he succumbed to
injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned
award on the ground that Tribunal erred in believing that FIR was lodged
belatedly and dismissed the claim petition on technical grounds. It is also
submitted that deceased died on account of motor accident and therefore, the
Tribunal should have allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation.
5 . Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has
supported the impugned award and claimed dismissal of this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties on the question of
admission. Perused the impugned award wherein it is stated that deceased was
treated at Nagpur and after treatment information was sent by the Police through
Post Office, therefore, there is delay in lodging the FIR. Eventually, for cause of
delay in lodging an FIR there will be requirement of evidence and consideration
of arguments on the point of delay. It is also seen that regarding Insurance
Policy no specific evidence has been recorded. From perusal of Exhibit-D/1 it
is seen that only premium of Rs.50/- in respect of compulsory PA Cover
(Owner & Driver) has been taken, although the Insurance Policy (Exhibit-D/1)
has been termed as Comprehensive Package Policy, therefore, this appeal is
liable to be admitted for hearing.
7 . The appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of learned
counsel for the parties is finally heard and is decided as below.
8. In view of the fact that Tribunal has not given any specific finding
o n Issue No.2 whether the deceased died as a result of motor accident and
whether there was breach of Insurance Policy or not, as there is mention in
paragraphs 22 to 24 of the impugned award that Insurance Company has not
given any evidence although they have filed Exhibit-D/1 (Insurance Policy),
therefore, the Tribunal has not fixed any compensation and awarded
compensation.
9. In view of the fact that no further hearing is possible in this case
as the Tribunal has to give finding on some Issues. Therefore, this matter is
remanded to the Tribunal to give proper opportunity to both the parties for
adducing evidence on all issues specifically in respect of delay part and for that
aspect the Tribunal may frame specific issue to the effect whether there was
proper cause for delay in lodging the FIR and may also frame issue whether the
Insurance Policy (Exhibit-D/1) is comprehensive policy applicable to pillion
rider and it will cover the risk of owner and driver of the offending vehicle in the
light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Bala Krishnan, (2013) 1 SCC 731.
10. In the result, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. Both
the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Tribunal on 08.7.2024.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
