Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Smt. Sona Devi on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
1 MA-2832-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 21 st OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 2831 of 2023
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REGISTERED
OFFICE E8 EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA JAIP
Versus
SMT. SONA DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kuldeep Singh - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akhlesh Kumar Gupta - learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and
2.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2832 of 2023
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGISTERED OFFICE
E8 EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA JAI
Versus
CHANDRASHEKHAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kuldeep Singh - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta - learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.
ORDER
Both these appeals filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
are being decided by this common order, as both these appeals are filed against the
award dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No.97/2022 and 95/2022; whereby, learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,53,520 in Claim Case No.97/2022
and Rs.7,69,800/- in claim Case No.95/2022 - with interest at the rate of 6% per
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
2 MA-2832-2023
annum to claimant.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeals, in brief, are
that on 8.6.2016, a vehicle, namely a Pickup bearing registration No. UP-83-K-
9502, being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit
Neelesh and Chandrashekhar. As a result, Both were sustained grievous injuries
and Neelesh died.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company that the learned Tribunal has erroneously found the fact of the accident
proved as claimed in the claim petition. While inviting attention to various
documents filed in rebuttal on behalf of the Insurance Company, it is submitted
that at the time of the accident, the deceased and the injured were sitting in the
pick-up vehicle, which is the offending vehicle. It was not meant for carrying
passengers. Being gratuitous passengers in a goods carriage vehicle, the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. In this regard, in para 24
of the impugned award, a reply was filed raising the objection. It is also submitted
that both pleading and proof are there on record. He relied on the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati and
Others (2007) 1 ACC 924 and prayed that the Insurance Company be exonerated
from the liability to pay compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the Insurance
Company has not categorically taken the objection in the written statement
regarding the deceased and the injured person sitting in the offending vehicle as
passengers therefore they are not covered under Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, and consequently, that the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation. It is further submitted that the contradiction has not been got
proved as per law. No attention of the witnesses was drawn to the recitals in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
3 MA-2832-2023
documents containing the fact that the deceased and injured persons were
travelling in the offending vehicle; therefore, the contention of the appellant in
this regard is not acceptable. He further submits, in respect of the cross-objection,
that the learned Tribunal, in the death case, did not award 40% future prospects
and consortium. In the injury case, the learned Tribunal found 20% permanent
disability but awarded loss of income only up to 10%, which ought to be 20%.
Future prospects @ 40% were also not awarded by the Tribunal. The amount
awarded towards pain and suffering is also on the lower side. He relied on the
judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of United India Insurance
Co. Ltd v. Revathy and others MACD 2013 (1) (MAD) 562 . He also relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Smt. Asha and others in M.A. No.211 of 2013 and Smt. Rajewari Jatav and others
v. Milgresh Bigrena and others in M.A. No.484 of 2017. Therefore, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and for enhancement of
the compensation amount.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
submitted that appropriate court fee has not been paid in the cross-objection;
therefore, the cross-objection is not tenable.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the case of Devi Singh v. Tajsingh MACD 2013 (2) (M.P) 1007 it has
been held by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the statement of injured and
eye-witnesses showing that claimant was standing on the road for waiting of a bus,
the offending jeep dashed him thereby he has received injuries. It is found that
there is no discrepency in the pleading and statement to prove the accident in the
manner it has been stated; therefore, the factum of accident has been found proved
and exoneration of insurance company by learned Tribunal has set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
4 MA-2832-2023
8. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.s Revathy and others
MACD 2013 (Mad) 562 it has been held by Madras High Court that manner in
which accident took place as narrated in the FIR fully supported by witness who
had seen the occurrence. The Insurance Company deputed one
Surveyor/Investigator after two years of accident, who gave report that auto-
rickshaw was not involved in the accident. It held by the Court that report of
investigator is not admissible in evidence for deciding the question as to which
vehicle was involved in accident and it is found that the insurance company is
liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
9. The appellant has challenged the testimony of Shrikrishna (AW/1) on the
ground that he was not eye-witness to the incident. As per his statement before the
investigator and as per police record, he has received an information on telephone
from Baratees who were going in the offending vehicle as passenger. In this
respect, when this Court travelled through the material available on record and
testimonies of Shrikrishna (AW/1), it is found that Shrikrishna (AW/1) has
deposed in his statement that he was present with his son Neelesh at the time of
accident. At that time Aniket and Chandrashekhar were also present there and
waiting for bus. Suddenly, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No.
2 rashly and negligently, came and dashed into them. As a result, his son Neelesh
and Aniket sustained injuries, and Neelesh later succumbed to those injuries. This
witness has been cross-examined by the non-appellant- insurance company but he
remained intact in his cross-examination. He stated categorically that there was no
passenger in the offending vehicle at the time of accident and he has not informed
the police about the travelling in the offending vehicle. The statement of this
witness is substantiated by the FIR (Ex.P/1) which was lodged on 15.6.2016, 7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
5 MA-2832-2023
days after the accident. It is mentioned in the FIR that the delay in lodging the
report was due to the fact that the informant, Shrikrishna (AW/1) was busy in
providing proper treatment to his son Neelesh and thereafter he was under the
effect of dismay and shock; therefore, the delay has been caused. The reason of
delay seems to be satisfactorily in the light of the facts and circumstances of the
case.
10. The statement of Shrikrishna (AW/1) is further substantiated by the
Naksha Mauka (Ex. P/2), which shows the place where the deceased and injured
were standing near the road and where the offending vehicle dashed into them. Ex.
P/4 is a letter addressed to the Police Station Incharge by the driver of the
offending vehicle, Balkishan, regarding the accident. Another document, the Merg
report lodged on 15.6.2016 as Ex. P/12, along with other documents, also
substantiates the fact of the accident as stated by the witness Shrikrishna (AW/1).
11. In rebuttal of this evidence, though witnesses Surendra Singh (NAW/1)
and Mahesh (NAW/2) were examined on behalf of the insurance company,
Surendra Singh (NAW/1) being the investigator and Mahesh (NAW/2) the law
officer of the appellant-insurance company, have simply produced documents as
Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/9 and photographs marked as Article A/1 to A/18 but they
admitted in the cross-examination that they were not present at the time of
accident and they have not seen the accident. Therefore as far as the factum of
accident is concerned, there is no ground to disbelieve the statement
of Shrikrishna (AW/1) which is corroborated by the documents on record in the
form of proceedings of the police.
12. So far as the document submitted on behalf of insurance company are
concerned, it was incumbent on the appellant-insurance company to draw the
attention of witness to parts of the police statements etc. given by the witness or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
6 MA-2832-2023
otherwise recorded by the police which were contradictory to his statement. This
is the procedure prescribed under Section 145 of the Evidence Act to prove
contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses, but this was not
done. Moreover, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, Balkishan and
Sarita, have not been examined on behalf of the non-applicant. The best evidence
regarding the factum of the accident how and in what manner it occurred would
have been the driver of the offending vehicle, but the driver was not examined
before the learned Tribunal. In such a case, an adverse inference may be drawn
against the non-applicants regarding the factum of the accident.
13. In the case of Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
AIR 2009 SC 2819 it is ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in claim cases the
claimant is not under the obligation to adduce cogent evidence. The claim cases
are to be decided on the principle of preponderance of probability. Principle of
beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable in such cases.
14. In the case of Rajendra Singh vs. Sheetal Das, 1992(1) M.P.W.N. 104,
it has been observed that if the driver of the offending vehicle is not examined on
behalf of the non-applicants, a presumption may be drawn against him that he was
driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently.
15. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Sanjay Kumar &
Ors., II(2011) ACC 75 it has been held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that
when driver of the offending vehicle is facing criminal trial, prima facie it can be
presumed that he was responsible for accident.
16. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid cases as well as the
evidence available on record, the claimants have successfully proved the factum of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
7 MA-2832-2023
the accident as stated by Shrikrishna (AW/1). It is pertinent to note that
Shrikrishna (AW/1) has been cited as an eye-witness to the accident, and the final
charge sheet (Ex. P/12) supports his testimony. Therefore, as an eye-witness, his
evidence cannot be discarded. In rebuttal, there is no cogent or clinching evidence
to disbelieve the statement of this witness.
17. It is also worthy to mention that the appellant-insurance company, in its
reply before the Tribunal, has not taken any categorical stand regarding the fact
that the deceased and other injured persons were traveling in the offending vehicle
a s baratees, and no issue was framed in this regard due to the absence of
categorical averments. Therefore, in the absence of such pleading, proof on this
point cannot be admitted in evidence. In the case of New India Assurance
Company Ltd. v. Vedwati and others (2007) 1 ACC 924, the Supreme Court held
that the insurer's policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act did not
cover passengers transported in a goods vehicle. I am respectfully in agreement
with the law laid down in the aforesaid case, but the factual matrix here is
different and distinguishable. It is not found proved that the deceased Neelesh and
injured Chandrashekhar were sitting in the offending vehicle as passengers;
therefore, the law laid down in the aforesaid case is not helpful to the appellant-
insurance company.
18. As far as the respondents on behalf of the claimants are concerned in the
accidental death case of Neelesh, the learned Tribunal has not awarded the amount
for future prospects. Keeping in view the age of the deceased Neelesh, who was
22 years old at the time of his accidental death, the claimants are entitled to get
40% towards future prospects in the light of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. The learned Tribunal, in the absence of proof
of income of the deceased, has rightly relied on the minimum wage for unskilled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
8 MA-2832-2023
labour declared by the Collector, Bhind, which was Rs. 6,850 per month. The
Tribunal has correctly assessed the dependency at 50%, considering the deceased
was a bachelor. The multiplier of 18 has also been properly applied. However, the
loss of consortium to both appellants has not been awarded by the learned
Tribunal, they are also entitled to get loss of consortium. The calculation of the
aforesaid compensation as the per the aforesaid discussion is as infra:
S. Amount of compensation Amount of compensation
Head
No. awarded by claims Tribunal assessed by this Court
Income of
1 Rs.6850 x12= 82,200/- 6,850/-
deceased
2. Dependency 1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%)
Future
3. - 40%
prospects
6,850 x12 =82,200 x1/2
Loss of 6850 x12=82,200x1/2 41,100/- +40%
income =41,100 x18= 7,39,800/- =57,540/- x 18
= 10,35,720/-
Funeral
6. 15,000/- 15,000/-
Expenses
7. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of 80,000/- (parents of the
8. -
consortium deceased)
Total
9. 7,69,800/- 11,45,720/-
Compensation
Additional
10. 3,75,920/-
enhancement
19. As far as the injured Chandrashekhar is concerned, the learned Tribunal
has found 20% permanent disability. However, the Tribunal has not awarded 40%
towards future prospects in favour of the claimant Chandrashekhar, which he is
entitled to get the future prospects in light of the dictum laid down in Pranay Sethi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
9 MA-2832-2023
(supra). With regard to permanent disability, although the Tribunal has recorded
physical disablement at 20%, the loss of income has been assessed at 10%. As per
the permanent disability certificate (Ex. P/21), he sustained a fracture of the radius
bone. Considering the statement of Dr. R.K. Agrawal (AW/2) and the disability
certificate (Ex. P/21), and in light of the doctor's cross-examination wherein he
clarified that the percentage of disability is not with reference to the whole body,
the Tribunal has rightly considered the loss of income at 10% in view of the nature
of injury. Under the head of pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.
10,000/-, which ought to have been Rs. 25,000/-.
20. As regards the penal interest, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur and others, (2004)2 SCC
370 has held that no penal interest can be imposed on Insurance Company on
failure to deposit the compensation amount within the stipulated period. Para 14 of
the said judgment being relevant is reproduced as infra :-
"Though Section 110-CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of
the new Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the
same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the
same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged
whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be
imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the
Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be
awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope
for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation.
No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from
Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a
direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for
default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable
thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not
statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the
rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable
till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being
enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal."
21. Keeping in view the law laid down in aforesaid case, this Court is of the
considered view that penal interest as imposed in this case by learned Tribunal is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
10 MA-2832-2023
not lawful.
22. The calculation of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant
is as follows:
Amount of compensation Amount of
S.
Head awarded by claims compensation assessed
No.
Tribunal by this Court
Annual Income of
1 Rs.82,200/- 82,200/-
injured
10% reduction in
2. future earning 8,220/- 8,220/-
capacity
3. Future prospects - 40%
8,220+40% =11,508/-
5. Loss of income 8,220 x16 =1,31,520/- 11,508 x 16
=1,84,128/-
6. medical expenses 1000/- 1000/-
7. Attender 1000/- 1000/-
Loss of income
8. 5000/- 5000/-
during treatment
9. Special diet 5000/- 5000/-
10. Pain and suffering 10,000/- 25,000/-
Total
9. 1,53,520/- 2,21,128/-/-
Compensation
Additional
10. 67,608/-
enhancement
23. Resultantly, these Misc. Appeals filed by the Insurance Company are
dismissed. The cross objections i.e. document No.1502/2024 (in M.A. No. 2831 of
2023) and document No.1501 of 2024 (in M.A. No.2832 of 2023) filed on behalf
of respondents/claimants are allowed to the extent indicated above. Rest of the
terms and condition of the impugned award shall remain intact except penal
interest. The Appellants are entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of application.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15099
11 MA-2832-2023
24. However, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company
submits that learned counsel for the respondents/claimants have not filed the
proper court fees on cross objection and paid the court fees of Rs.30/- only.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants is directed to pay the
difference of court fees in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Kavita Balthiya and Others vs. Santosh Kumar and Another in Civil
Appeal No. 8053/2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 16558/2024) , within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which,
the present order shall not be given effect to.
26. With the aforesaid, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed off.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
