Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwarlal vs Smt. Sangita on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
1 MA-2108-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 2108 of 2014
SMT. SANGITA
Versus
ISHWARLAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2093 of 2014
ISHWARLAL AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SANGITA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L.S.Jhala, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
Misc.Appeal No.2108/2014 has been filed by appellant/claimant
challenging the adequacy of the compensation and Misc.Appeal
No.2093/2014 has been filed by the appellants/driver and owner of the
vehicle challenging the breach of policy and consequential liability under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated
4.12.2013 passed in Claim Case No.158/2011.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
2 MA-2108-2014
2. The factum of accident and consequently death of deceased are not
under dispute.
3. In M.A.No.2108/2014 counsel for the appellant submits that income
as has been taken by the claims Tribunal @ Rs.3,000/- per month is not
commensurate with the material, which was brought on record for proving
the employment of the deceased. He submits that it is clearly come in para
29, 30, 31 and 32 that deceased Manoj was doing business of photography
and Electrician work for last six to seven years and he was earning
Rs.Fifteen to Sixteen thousand per month. He submits that the statement of
Shripal (AW-3) as well as appellant Sangita, who deposed as AW-3, have
clearly stated in their statements before the Court about the employment of
the deceased. He submits that in the cross-examination nothing substantial
had come and the Insurance Company was not able to shake the version of
the above two witnesses in their cross-examination. Thus, considering the
employment of the deceased the claims Tribunal has ultimately taken income
of the deceased on notional basis at Rs.3,000/- per month, when the
claimants were able to establish the fact that deceased was doing
photography and Electrician work for last more than six to seven years.
3.1 He further submits that the amount of compensation for loss of
consortium, loss of estate and other conventional heads is also very meager.
It is well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , 2017 (16)
SCC 680, that the amount of compensation under the head of consortium
should be Rs.40,000/-.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
3 MA-2108-2014
3.2 He also submits that future prospects have not been taken into
consideration, which have also been settled in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra).
4. In M.A.No.2093/2014 counsel for the appellants submits that
liability of the owner has wrongly been fastened in terms of the analysis
made in para 13 to 26 of the award. The simple question, which was
considered by the claims Tribunal was that the deceased at the time of
accident was holding license for Light Motor Vehicle. Thus, it was
concluded that he was not having a license for driving a transport vehicle.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rambha
Devi and others, Civil Appeal No.841/2018, has held that a driver holding
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 Motor Vehicles Act specifically for the "Transport
Vehicle" class. Thus, he submits that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court there was no breach of the policy on the part of the owner and driver
of the vehicle. The liability is of the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation.
5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits
that the breach of insurance policy was established beyond any doubt and he
submits that claims Tribunal has correctly arrived at the conclusion that
liability is of the owner and driver of the vehicle and not of the Insurance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
4 MA-2108-2014
Company. He further submits that assessment of income on notional basis at
Rs.3,000/- per month is correct and proper. He refers to para 31 and 32 of the
award and states that claims Tribunal has correctly observed that the
statements of AW-1 and AW-3 are not reliable. He submits that the above
two witnesses have stated that the deceased was keeping the accounts of his
business, but none of such books have been produced before the claims
Tribunal. Thus, the statements of the above two witnesses cannot be relied
upon. Thus, the conclusion of the claims Tribunal is correct and proper.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
5 MA-2108-2014
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.
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'.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
6 MA-2108-2014
(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."
8. This authoritative pronouncement of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court
clears a cloud about the uncertainty of the law and consequently the findings
about the breach of policy by the claims Tribunal in terms in terms of para
26 stands negated. Thus, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to
pay compensation and there was no breach of policy.
9. As regards assessment of income of the deceased from the statements
made by appellant No.1 (AW-1) and AW-3 it has come to the fore that
deceased was doing business of photography and was also working as
Electrician. A thorough perusal of the statements inspire confidence. The
cross-examination of the witnesses did not yield anything contrary to what
has been stated in the examination-in-chief by the aforesaid two witnesses.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hansa Devi and others Vs. SBI
General Insurance Company Limited and another in SLP (C) No.10822/2021
has held in para 4 as under:-
"4. We find no reason to accede to the reduction of income as
done by the High Court. The accident occurred on 08.05.2014. In
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.
Ltd., this Court held that even a coolie would get an income of
Rs.4,500/-in the year 2004. Hence, an unskilled labourer
considering the marginal and incremental increase in each
successive year @ Rs.500/- per year would be entitled to get
almost Rs.10,000/- in the year 2014. Hence, the claim made before
the Tribunal with respect to the driver of heavy vehicle getting
Rs.10,000/- as wages per month must be necessarily accepted.
Insofar as the loss of consortium, it has been held in New India
Assurance Company v. Somwati and Ors. that even the children
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
7 MA-2108-2014
and the parents are entitled to compensation for loss of
consortium."
10. Keeping in view that the accident in the present case has occurred
on 28.12.2009 i.e. after five years of the incident as referred by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above para, income of the deceased out of business of
photography and Electrician work is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month.
11. The claims Tribunal has not awarded anything for future prospects,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) and keeping in view the age of the deceased in terms of
para 31 of the award, this Court is of the view that the amount for future
prospects should be at 40%. As it appears from the award that multiplier of
17 has been correctly applied by the claims Tribunal. Thus, after these
modifications a total compensation for loss of dependency comes to
Rs.9,52,000/-. As regards compensation for loss of consortium an amount of
Rs.40,000/- is awarded to each claimant and for other conventional heads an
amount of Rs.35,000/- is awarded. As such now the total compensation after
above additions and modifications comes to Rs.11,07,000/-. The claims
Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.4,44,000/-. Thus, the
appellant-Sangita in M.A.No.2108/2014 is entitled for an amount of
Rs.5,83,000/- over and above the amount already awarded with the interest at
the same rate and in the same manner as awarded by the claims Tribunal.
12. The amount of filial consortium shall go to respondents No.4 and
5, which shall carry the same rate of interest in the same manner as awarded
by the claims Tribunal.
13. In M.A.No.2093/2014, the owner has deposited certain part of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16548
8 MA-2108-2014
amount awarded by the claims Tribunal. In view of the order passed today,
he is entitled to withdraw the said amount on depositing the same by the
Insurance Company.
14. Accordingly, both the misc.appeals stand disposed off in above
terms.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
patil
