Madhya Pradesh High Court
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Ram Bai And 5 Ors. on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13484
1 MA-2763-2010
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. 2763 of 2010
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
RAM BAI AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel with Shri B.Agrawal - Advocate
for the appellant / Insurance Company.
Shri Zenith Chhablani - Advocate appearing on behalf of Akshat
Pahadia, learned counsel for respondents.
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A.No.5394/2010, which is an application for
condonation of delay.
2. There is a delay of 26 days in filing the appeal.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. I.A.No.5394/2010, stand closed.
5. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is finally heard.
6 . The appellant / Insurance Company has filed this appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award
dated 29/4/2010 on the sole issue that the claims tribunal has incorrectly
denied contributory negligence of the deceased. The submission of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13484
2 MA-2763-2010
appellant is that in para 7, 8 and 9 the analysis of the claims tribunal would
show that based on the spot map made by the investigating agency it was
clear that the vehicle driven by deceased Keshar Singh was on the right side
of the road which according to the counsel for the appellant was a wrong side
as per traffic Rules thus he was contributing to the accident, which has
resulted in his death. Thus he submits that the claims tribunal should have
restricted amount of compensation to the 50% of the award for the reason
that the deceased being one of the contributory party in the head on collusion
of two vehicles. This is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions
relied on the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Bijoy
Kumar Dugar V/s. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 242 , Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd V/s. Premlata Shukla & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 476
and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. ,
(2025) 2 SCC 509 . He by referring to these judgments submits that the
documents of criminal case if relied by one of the parties then this cannot be
allowed that part of the document is relied and part is refuted. He also
submits by referring to the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) that in cases
of head on collusion inference about contributory negligence of both the
vehicles can be taken by the claims tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 per contra states
that in fact the appeal filed by them, ie., M.A.No.2461/2010 was dismissed
in default vide order dated 14/2/2014 but keeping in view the provisions of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13484
3 MA-2763-2010
Section 168 as well as the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this
Court can still see that they have been awarded just and proper
compensation. He submits that on bare perusal of the award it would come to
the fore that the claims tribunal has not awarded anything for future
prospects. He further submits that even the assessment of income was a very
low and submits that the compensation awarded in conventional heads is not
just and proper.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. On perusal of the record of the case, it is seen that it was a case
of head on collusion. As per the facts as narrated in para 3 of the award the
accident has occurred on 26/5/2008 when the truck bearing registration No.
M.P. 09 KC 3080 which was being driven by deceased Keshar Singh, whose
LR's have filed the claim petition before the tribunal, has collided with the
truck bearing registration No.GJ 6 Y 5006 near Mangodh and Khakedi at
Indore Ahmedabad road. The description of the accident has been recorded
as per the submissions of the counsel for the appellant by the Investigating
Agency. He submits that the spot map prepared by the agency provides that
the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased Keshar Singh was on the
right side of the road. Thus he submits that he was one of the contributing
person in the accident. Though the factum of head on collusion is not
disputed by any of the parties but the eyewitness Maan Singh (PW2) in his
statement before the Court has explained the circumstances in which the
accident has occurred. He has explained that the truck was carrying sand and
was going from Rampura to Pithampur. According to him accident has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13484
4 MA-2763-2010
occurred near village Mangodh. He explained map and has stated that at the
time of accident the truck which was being driven by Keshar Singh was on
the left side of the road. He submits that there was no fault on the part of
Keshar Singh in the accident. The claims tribunal in para 11 of the award has
relied on the statement of the said eyewitness after considering the entire
material before it.
11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on
the cases as mentioned above, it is seen that in the case of Bijoy Kumar
Dugar (supra) a clear finding has come which has been dealt by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in para 12 of the order that the driver of the car had seen the
abnormal course of the bus from the distance and he still continued to drive
towards that bus. Thus by referring to this fact the Hon'ble Court held that for
this reason inference about negligence of the driver of the car can also be
taken. In the present case no such material is available on record. As regards
the reliance placed on ICICI Lombard (supra) and Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd (supra) there is no denial of the fact that while recording
findings about the factum of accident reliance can always be placed on the
material produced either of the parties whether it was a part of the criminal
case prepared by the investigating agency or some other material, but in the
present case, it is not a simple case of reliance on the material of the
investigating agency. It is a case where the claims tribunal after considering
the material viz a viz., the evidence rendered by the eyewitness of the
incident has weighed in favour of the eyewitness account and not on the map
which contrary to the version of the eyewitness. This Court does not find any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13484
5 MA-2763-2010
infirmity in conclusions and findings arrived at by the claims tribunal. Thus
the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. As regards the contention of the appellant that respondents No.1
to 4 that just and proper compensation has not been awarded and nothing has
been awarded under the head of future prospects, in view of the fact that
appeal was filed by the respondents and that has been dismissed this Court is
not inclined to pass any order in the present appeal as it was for the
respondents to pursue their case and they after filing the same has slept over
it, which resulted in the dismissal of the same.
13. Thus with the above terms, the present appeal stands disposed
off.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SS/-
