Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dashrath vs Sampat on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
1 MA-879-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 879 of 2015
DASHRATH
Versus
SAMPAT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pourush Ranka - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sudarshan Pandit - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
The appellant has filed this Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 20.01.2015 passed
in Claim Case No.54/2013 challenging the quantum of compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.2012 the appellant was
going along with his friend Vikram towards their village through motorcycle.
At around 04:45 pm near Kachnara Suvasara Road at Jhalaara Fantaa
respondent No.1 came driving pick up vehicle bearing registration number
RJ-06-GA-5105 in rash and negligent manner and collided with the
motorcycle of appellant. Because of the accident, the other person namely
Vikram died on the spot due to the grievous injuries sustained by him and the
appellant has also suffered grievous injuries. He remained unconscious for
three days and was hospitalized for about 21 days.
2.1 The appellant / claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
2 MA-879-2015
the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by
him in the accident. The Claims Tribunal, after assessing the evidence on
record, concluded that the appellant is liable for contributory negligence and
thus, deducted 50% of the award. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.17,200/- has
been awarded to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
wrongly disbelieved the period of hospitalization as per the findings recorded
in the para 13 of the impugned award. He submits that merely for a
typographical error in the date on the Discharge Ticket, the entire documents
could not have been discarded by the Claims Tribunal, when bills of
treatment were available on record as Ex.-P/13 to P/32, whcih have not been
denied or disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, it is submitted that the
period of hospitalization from 28.02.2012 to 20.03.2012 should have been
considered by the Claims Tribunal. He points that in Discharge Ticket in
place of 28.02.2012 , the date is mentioned as " 28.02.2013" and the date of
discharge is mentioned as 20.03.2012 . He points that it was the mistake
merely due to oversight. In support of his submissions, he points out that all
the bills of treatment were of the date from 03.03.2012 to 20.03.2012. Thus,
the date of hospitalization is clearly demonstrated by those bills.
3.1 He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has recorded findings
about the contributory negligence in para 7 of the impugned award for which
only it has been held that because there were four persons sitting on the
motorcycle, thus the appellant was liable for attributing contributory
negligence upon him. He submits that merely for the reason that four persons
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
3 MA-879-2015
were sitting on the motorcycle, contributory negligency cannot be fastened in
absence of any other corroborative material. For this proposition, he relies on
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed
Siddique Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2020 SC
3.2 He further submits that for the Special Diet only an amount of
Rs.1,000/- has been awarded. He also submits that the medical bills of
Rs.13,727/- have been disbelieved only for the reason of mistake of the date
on the Discharge Ticket and for period of treatment i.e. during which the
appellant remained plastered for the fracture sustained by him, only an
amount of Rs.100/- per day has been awarded, which is very less. Lastly, he
submits that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated from the
liability of payment of compensation on the ground that Driver of the
offending vehicle was holding license of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV),
whereas it was a Jeep i.e. the transport vehicle. He submits that this issue has
already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court
relying on the Apex Court judgment.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 / Insurance
Company supports the findings of Claims Tribunal and submits that it is a
clear case of contributory negligence for the reason that the appellant was
sitting with other three persons on a motorbike. A motorbike cannot be
controlled properly, if there are four persons sitting on the same. He submits
that the appellant was also liable in contributing for accident.
4.1 He further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle must
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
4 MA-879-2015
have possessed license for driving a transport vehicle as he was holding only
an LMV license, thus the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the
Insurance Company form the liability of payment of compensation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
record.
6. The issue regarding exoneration of the Insurance Company from
payment of compensation has been considered by the Claims Tribunal in
para 12 to 27 of the impugned award. From a perusal of the findings
recorded by the Claims Tribunal in para 16 of the award, it is seen that the
Claims Tribunal itself has recorded that the Ex.-D/11 was the license and
Ex.-D/12 was the verification report, which provided that the Driver of the
pick-up vehicle was having LMV license on the date of accident. It is thus,
clear that the Driver was having "LMV License" but was not having
"Transport License". This issue has recently been considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in para 130 and 131 in the case of Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and Others (Civil Appeal
No.841/2018) and by this Court in the case of Smt. Sangita Vs. Ishwarlal and
Others (Misc. Appeal No.2108/2014) after considering the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court following was recorded in para 7 of the said order:
"7. As regards the question of liability of Insurance Company and
breach of policy the claims Tribunal from para 13 to 26 of the
award has considered the license of the deceased, who was the
driver of the vehicle, it has been concluded by the claims Tribunal
that the deceased was holding the license for Light Motor Vehicle
and thus held that he was driving a Transport Vehicle at the time
of accident, thus it was a case of breach of policy. Thus, liability
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
5 MA-879-2015
of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation is not
considered and the entire liability was fastened on Driver and
Owner of the vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. (Supra) has held in para 130
and 131 as under:-
"130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing
that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier
paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are
universal - regardless of whether the vehicle falls into
"Transport" or "Non-Transport" category, it is the considered
opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within
7,500 kg - the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with
LMV license, can also drive a "Transport Vehicle". We are
able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this
case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the
LMV driving licence holder, driving a 'Transport Vehicle', is
a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional
eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as
discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle
('medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle',
'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'), whose
gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on
how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the
statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety
concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood
issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock
maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating
"Transport vehicles" (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV
driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and
should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an
idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind
the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially
address the vexed question of law before this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
6 MA-879-2015
131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as
under:-
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to
operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing
additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the
MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class.
For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles
are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists
between the two. The special eligibility requirements
will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-
rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes
the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a
'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition
of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the
MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport
vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate
vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg
i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger
vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger
vehicle'.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is
upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this
judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the
decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions
of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in
the said judgment."
It is thus, held that there was no breach of Insurance Policy and the
Insurance Company is liable to make payment of compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
7 MA-879-2015
7. As far as the issue regarding the admission and discharge of the
appellant is concerned, it is seen from the Discharge Ticket that the same is
issued by Jila District Hospital, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Indira Gandhi Hospital,
Mandsaur, which is a Government Institution. There is no reason to
disbelieve the said Discharge Ticket, even the Insurance Company could
have duly verified the genuineness of the said document. Merely because
there is an error in writing the date, the same cannot be disbelieved when the
date of admission is clearly stated by the witness and demonstrated from the
facts. Thus, it is held that the appellant remained hospitalized for the period
from 28.02.2012 to 20.03.2012.
8. As regards to the payment of Rs.4,200/- at the rate of Rs.100/- per
day for the loss of earning during the period of treatment, considering the
date of accident on 28.02.2012 the same appears to be very low. Also an
amount of Rs.1,000/- for Special Diet is also very low. In view of the above
findings and looking to the amount of medical bills of Rs.13,727/-, this Court
is of considered view that a lump sum amount should be awarded to the
appellant. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and remained in Coma
for three days as well as hospitalized for 21 days, this Court thinks it proper
to award an amount of Rs.75,000/- and in addition an amount of Rs.13,727/-
of the expenditure incurred in the treatment.
9. As such, the appellant is to be paid a total sum of Rs.88,727/- over
and above the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
10. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the application before the Claims Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21283
8 MA-879-2015
Since this Court has awarded a lump sum amount, there is no need to advert
to the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligency.
11. In the above terms, the present appeal stands disposed of.
12. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all the pending applications
are hereby closed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Anushree
