Madhya Pradesh High Court

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. vs Chhotelal Prajapati on 23 July, 2025

01
M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and
M.A.No.813/2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025

MISC. APPEAL No. 704 of 2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SMT. RAMADEVI AND OTHERS
______________________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Shri Raj Kumar Kushwah- Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 7.

WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 705 of 2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. THR.
Versus
CHHOTELAL PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Shri Raj Kumar Kushwah- Advocate for the respondent No.1.

MISC. APPEAL No. 706 of 2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SMT. KASTURIDEVI AND OTHERS
02
M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and
M.A.No.813/2015.

MA No. 812 of 2015
(SMT. KUSHTURIDEVI AND OTHERS Vs DILEEP KUMAR DUBE AND OTHERS )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Kushwah - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company

MISC. APPEAL No. 813 of 2015
SMT. RAMADEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
DILEEP KUMAR DUBE AND OTHERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Kushwah - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company

ORDER

These five connected Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same accident and are being decided by this common order.

2. These appeals challenge the common award dated 08.05.2015, passed by Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena, in Claim Cases

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

No.450/2013, 451/2013 and 452/2023.

3. M.A.Nos.704/2015, 705/2015 and 706/2025 have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award. M.A.No.812/2015 has been filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in respect of the death of Motiram in a road accident. M.A.No.813/2015 has been filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation amount awarded in respect of the death of Mukesh in the same accident.

4. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that, on 18.11.2012, deceased Mukesh, Motiram and Chotehlal were going in a Alto car from Morena to Kailaras at 7.45 PM, as soon as the car reached near Shekpur Fatak on the way of M.S. Road, respondent - Dileep Kumar Dube driving the Marshal jeep bearing registration No.M.P.06/BA/0276 came from Morena side and dashed the jeep, resulted in the deceased succumbed the injuries.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that it is a case of false implication. Though, F.I.R. (Ex.P/2) has been registered after five hours of the incident at Police Station Kailaras but F.I.R. did not contain the registration number of the offending vehicle. Offending vehicle has been named as Marshal car, while the offending vehicle seized by way of Ex.P/5 is Bulero jeep bearing registration No.MP.06/BA/0276. The accident has occurred on 18.11.2012 but after the period of one month and seven days Keeratram (AW-2) has been examined on 24.12.2012 and he has stated that the vehicle which caused accident was aforesaid Bulero vehicle. Thereafter, on 25.11.2012, the Police has seized the vehicle and arrested Dilip Kumar by arrest memo Ex.P/6. Keeratram(Aw-2) has been examined on behalf of the claimants but having regard to the contradictions and omissions in his statement, the veracity of his statement is doubtful. It is also submitted that the documents

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

prepared by police before 24.12.2012 does not depict the description of offending vehicle. Every where it was stated that it was Marshal jeep which goes to show that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in this accident after one month and seven days. It is also submitted that in these facts and circumstances, Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation in this case ought to be examined on behalf of the claimant side but Investigating Officer has not been examined for the reasons best known to claimants. As far as the appeal on enhancement is concerned, the learned tribunal has appropriately assessed the amount of compensation and there is no ground for enhancement. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. mahila Kalawati and Others, MACD 2015(1)(M.P.), 207 and Smt. Mahadevi and Others Vs. Vrandavan Rawat and Others, Misc. Appeal No.1088/2013, dated 25.04.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the learned tribunal has categorically in detail has appreciated the evidence on record and material and rightly concluded that the factum of accident is found proved as mentioned in the claim petition. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Keeratram, who was the eyewitness of the accident has categorically stated that the offending vehicle has caused the accident on the date of incident. In these circumstances, Investigating Officer was not required to be produced before learned Tribunal. It is also submitted that as far as the enhancement is concerned, the learned tribunal has calculated the amount of compensation on lower side. The deceased Motiram was a skilled worker and was being an employee of Public Works Department. Therefore, as per the minimum wage of a skilled labour, his income ought to be assumed, while Mukesh was also a skilled labour. Therefore, keeping in view the minimum wage of skilled labour and adding 10% and 25% of future prospects, income of

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

Motiram and Mukesh respectively, the amount of compensation ought to be enhanced.

7. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has submitted that the father is not dependent on the deceased, therefore, the dependency is to be calculated without counting the father. It is also submitted that if calculated amount goes more than the valuation in this appeal, then interest ought to be given from the date of the payment of Court fees by the claimants.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In case of Mahila Kalawati (supra), it has been held by co-ordinate Bench of this Court that F.I.R.was lodged against unknown vehicle and does not bear the alleged truck number. Evidence of natural witness has been concealed. Evidence of eyewitnesses found doubtful and statement of I.O. was not got recorded. Vehicle truck has been seized after six months of alleged incident and PW-5 admitted that his statement was recorded by police nearly one and half months after the accident. It is held that Tribunal was not justified in holding that truck was involved in the accident.

10. In case of Mahadevi (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that only on the basis of the challan papers filed by the Police and admitting the factum of accident by the owner of the bus, the accident by offending vehicle cannot be accepted until and unless same is proved through evidence, documentary and as well as oral.

11. In this case, the F.I.R. Ex.P/2 reveals that there was a collision between Alto Car and Marshal jeep but it is pertinent to be mentioned here that the accident took place at 7.15 P.M when darkness naturally starts. Moreover, the informer Raju Prajapati is a villager and farmer, therefore, in identifying the vehicle, an error might happened. The Police statement Ex.P/8 taken by police of Keeratram (AW-2) on 24.12.2012 through which the fact revealed that the

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

offending vehicle was a bullero vehicle bearing registration No.M.P.06/BA/0276 and, thereafter, Police thoroughly investigated the matter and after investigation, the Police has found that the driver of the offending vehicle Dilip Kumar, who has caused the accident by driving it rashly and negligently and hit the Alto car hence, charge-sheet under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 of IPC has been filed against him before concerned criminal Court. In charge- sheet, name of Keeratram has been mentioned as an eye witness to the accident at serial no.4 in witness list

12. Witnesses adduced on behalf of claimants side Rambai (AW-1) is not an eyewitness to the accident. Witness Keeratram has categorically stated in his statement in his statement that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver, has caused the accident by hitting the alto car thereby Motiram, Mukesh and Chotehlal have sustained grievous injuries. Motiram and Mukesh succumbed. Keeratram (Aw-2) in cross-examination had also stated that he has seen the vehicle from back side. Therefore, he could not seen that who was driving the vehicle nor he did not know it is Marshal vehcile or Bullero vehicle. He in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination has stated that the collision was with the Marshal jeep which shows that this witness was really confused at the time of accident as whether offending vehcile was Marshal jeep or Bullero vehicle. As a matter of fact, Marshal vehicle and Bullero vehicle are both of Mahendra make and keeping in view the time of accident as well as the status of the witness, error in identifying the make of vehicle might have happened. This witness Keeratram (AW-2) remained intact in the cross-examination also on the point that the vehicle caused the accident was having registration of MP.06/BA/0276.

13. Having regard to the time of accident, status of Raju Prajapati, who lodged the F.I.R. and witness Keeratram (AW-2) and attending facts and circumstances

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

of the case, it does not seem that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. has been lodged after five hours and there is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R as the priority for witnesses was to provide the appropriate treatment to the injured persons.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. The driver of the offending vehicle is the best person to depose before the tribunal about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and about the rash and negligent driving, however, driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined before learned tribunal for the reason best known to non-applicants. It is reflected from the statement of Keeratram (AW-2), Chotehlal (AW-3) that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and it dashed the alto car. Therefore, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent/driver is established. Hence the conclusion of Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not found to be erroneous.

18. Rambai (AW-1) stated that her husband Mukesh was doing the work of

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

mason and having income of Rs.8000-9000/- per month. Hakim(AW-4) has also reiterated this fact, who allegedly, was working with Mukesh. No cogent and reliable evidence with regard to the income of deceased Mukesh is on record. Had deceased Mukesh been working as mason, documentary evidence in the form of bank pass book, contract agreement between the parties for engaging the deceasing for the work of mason etc. might have been available and filed on behalf of claimants. But, no such evidence has been brought on record. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others vs. Mohammed Jameel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 is referrable. The relevant paras 14 and 21 of that judgment in this regard are as infra:

"14.Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.

21.In the instant case, the main grievance of the appellant is that the High Court erred in reducing the monthly income of the deceased from Rs 7000 to Rs 4000. More so, when the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning about Rs 20,000 per month. It needs little emphasis that insofar as the question of earnings of the deceased is concerned, the onus lies on the claimants to prove this fact by leading reliable and cogent evidence before the Tribunal. A bare assertion in the claim petition in that behalf is not sufficient to discharge that onus."

19. Therefore, it is not found proved that deceased Mukesh was doing the work of mason and had income of Rs.8000-9000/- per month. In absence of cogent

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

and reliable evidence in this regard, minimum wage of unskilled labourer may be resorted to. The minimum wage of unskilled labourer at the time was Rs.4,945/- per month, instead of Rs.4000/- as assumed by learned tribunal.

20. So far as income of deceased on Motiram is concerned, the son of deceased Motiram, Vasudev (AW-5) and Yogendra (AW6), who is employee of Water Resources Department have been examined. Yogendra (AW-6) has categorically stated that deceased Motiram was posted as daily paid employee and he worked since October 1976 to 18.11.2012. In July, 2012, he was withdrawing salary of Rs.5945/-. He also submitted the service book of Motiram (Ex.P/39). This witness remained intact in his cross examination, therefore, in the light of evidence of this witness coupled with the service book (Ex.P/39), the income of the deceased Motiram ought to be taken as Rs.5945/- per month. Since Motiram was also a daily paid employee, therefore, he was not in permanent job and as such assuming the job of both the deceased as temporary, calculation is to be made.

21. The age of deceased Mukesh was 42 years, therefore, multiplier of 14 is appropriate and future prospects at the rate of 25% is appropriate keeping in view the dependency as wife, two daughters, two sons and mother excluding father of the deceased, who cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased in light of dictum in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, therefore, the dependency of 3/4th is appropriate. The claimants are total 7 in number are entitled to get compensation towards loss of consortium @ 40,000/- per person and are entitled to loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-.

22. Deceased Motiram was 53 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 11 is appropriate and future prospects @ 10% is appropriate. Having considering the number of dependent three in number, the dependency of 2/3 rd is found to be

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

appropriate. Claimants are entitled to get compensation towards loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- per person and are entitled to loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-.

23. Therefore, the appeals filed on behalf of the Insurance Company (M.A.Nos.704/2015, 705/2015 and 706/2015) are found to be meritless. The factum of accident as found proved by learned Tribunal does not warrant any interference. Hence, the appeals of appellant/Insurance Company being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.

24. The appeal filed on behalf of claimants Smt. Kasturi devi and Others (M.A.No.812/2015) and claimants Smt.Ramadevi and Others (M.A.No.813/2015) are hereby allowed in part.

The calculation of compensation of claimants/appellants Smt. Kasturi Devi and Others is as follows : M.A.No.812/2015

Amount of Sr. compensation Amount of Compensation assessed by this Head awarded by No. Court Claims Tribunal

1. Income Rs.5945/- Rs.5945/-

2. Future prospect - 10 percent

3. Dependecy 2/3rd 2/3rd

Loss of 5945x12=71340x2/3 =47560+10%

5. 5,23,160/-

      Dependency                         =52316x11=5,75,476/-
6.    Loss of Estate        -            15,000/-
7.    Funeral Expenses 25,000/-          15,000/-
      Loss of
8.                      1,00,000/-       1,20,000/-
      consortium
9.    Total             6,88,160/-       7,25476/-
      Additional
10.                                      37,316/-
      Enhancement

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

The calculation of compensation of claimants/appellants Rama devi and

Others is as follows : M.A.No.813/2015

Amount of Sr. compensation Amount of Compensation assessed by this Head awarded by No. Court Claims Tribunal

1. Income Rs.4,000.- Rs.4,945/--

2. Future prospect - 25 percent

3. Dependecy 4/5th 3/4th

Loss of 4945x12=59340x3/4 =44505+25%

5. 5,37,600/-

      Dependency                       =55631x14=7,78,834/-
6.    Loss of Estate        -          15,000/-
7.    Funeral Expenses 25,000/-        15,000/-
      Loss of affection,
      care and guidance
8                        80,000/-           -
      of appellants
      No.2,3,45
      Loss of affection
      care and guidance
                         20,000/-           -
      of appellants No.6
      and 7
      Loss of
8.                      1,00,000/-     2,80,000/-
      consortium
9.    Total             7,62,600       10,88,834/-
      Additional
10.                                    3,26,234/-
      Enhancement

25 The appellants/claimants in M.A.No.812/2015 are entitled to get Rs.37,316/-

in addition to the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

26. Although the appellants/claimants in M.A.No.813/2015 have valued this

appeal at Rs.80,000/- and have paid court fees on the said amount, however, in

M.A.No.704/2015, M.A.No.705/2015, M.A.No.706/2015, MANo.812/2025 and M.A.No.813/2015.

view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kavita Balthiya and Others vs.

Santosh Kumar and Another in Civil Appeal No. 8053/2024 (@ SLP (C) No.

16558/2024), it is directed that the appellants shall pay the court fees on the

remaining amount of Rs.2,46,234/- (i.e., Rs.3,26,234 - Rs.80,000/-) 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. It is further clarified

that on this amount of Rs.2,46,234/- the interest as aforesaid shall be counted

from the date of deposition of court fee on the said amount.

27. Rest of the terms & conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE mani

SUBASR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=4b80d075e6ee8e3334ea900daffef9

I MANI 4852390562efcaf7cdb4d94b8fc0be1414, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=CA216CA75EF9E38C3785C8B BE6486F7003C0B639E6EA08F81ACF600889 A329F3, cn=SUBASRI MANI Date: 2025.07.29 10:20:04 +05'30'