Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Urmila @ Kaliya on 23 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 869 of 2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
SMT. URMILA @ KALIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Kushwaha - learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 870 of 2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
RAMHET AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - learned counsel for the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/30/2025
3:31:50 PM
2
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Kushwaha - learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
MISC. APPEAL No. 871 of 2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
Versus
SMT. KAMLESH JATAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - learned counsel for the appellant..
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Kushwaha - learned counsel for the
respondents No.1, 4, and 5.
MISC. APPEAL No. 891 of 2014
SMT. URMILA @ KALIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIVRAM RATHORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Kushwaha - learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - learned counsel for the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 7/30/2025
3:31:50 PM
3
No.3.
MISC. APPEAL No. 892 of 2014
SMT. KAMLESH JATAV AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIVRAM RATHORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Singh Kushwaha - learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - learned counsel for the respondent
No.3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The Misc. Appeals No.869 of 2014, Appeal No.870 of 2014 and
Misc.Appeal No.871 of 2014 filed by Insurance Company and Misc.
Appeal. No.891 of 2014 and Misc. Appeal No.892 of 2014 filed by the
claimants against the award dated 21.6.2014 passed by Fourth Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena [hereinafter it shall be referred
to as '' the Claims Tribunal''] in Claim Cases No.273/2013, 402/2012,
274/2013, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by
this common order. Vide impugned award learned claims Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.5,11,000/- in claim case No.273/13, Rs.
5,35,000/- in claim case No.274/2013 and Rs.30,000/- in claim Case
No.402/2012.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeals, in brief,
are that on 13.11.2011, Dharam Singh Jatav was travelling with the
applicant Ramhet, Parag Singh, and Makhan Singh in a tractor-trolley.
When they reached M.S. Road near Kulholi Mod at around 4:00 P.M., the
tractor-trolley was hit by a truck bearing Registration No.
M.P.06/G.A.0869, which was being driven rashly and negligently by
respondent No.2. As a result of the accident, they sustained grievous
injuries, and Prag Singh and Makhan Singh succumbed to their injuries.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company that it is is clear cut of false implication. The dehati nalisi
(Ex.P/13) and FIR lodged on the basis of dehati nalisi (Ex.P/2) does not
contain the registration number of the offending vehicle and it is
mentioned in these documents that unknown truck has caused the
accident. After a month of the accident, suddenly two witnesses namely
Bunty and Naresh come into the picture and their statements have been
recorded by the Police on 12.12.2011 and on the same day, the offending
vehicle has been seized and driver of the offending vehicle has been
arrested. The entire proceedings of the police in this respect creates doubt.
It is further stated Bunty has not examined on behalf of claimant. Naresh
(AW/5) has been examined but there are material contradictions and
omissions in his statements which indicates that he was not present on the
spot at the time of accident; hence, the statement of Naresh is not
believable. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the claimants to
examine investigatiing officer of the case to establish the fact that how he
has got information as regard of the offending vehicle and driver but in
absence of statement of investigating officer, the offending vehicle cannot
be linked with the accident. It is further submitted that Ramhet (AW/4)
though was injured in the accident but he has not seen the offending
vehicle nor its registration number; therefore, on the anvil of statement of
Ramhet (AW/4), no presumption can be drawn against offending vehicle.
It is also submitted that Naresh and Bunty are not named in the FIR and
investigating officer has not been examined. In this condition, learned
Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the accident has been caused by
the offending vehicle. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that as
far as the enhancement is concerned, the income of both the deceased
have not been proved. Ramesh Chandra (AW/3) though issued salary
certificate (Ex.P/21) in respect of deceased Makhan Singh but he had
admitted in his cross-examination that he has not got registered the firm
which is revealed from Ex.P/21. He has not taken any tin number etc. and
he has nowhere connected with the firm revealed from Ex.P/21, in these
circumstances, the income of deceased person to be taken as minimum
wage of unskilled labour. It is further submitted that the court fees in both
the appeals have been paid as per valuation of four lakhs. It is submitted
that if appeal of claimant are allowed then since earlier valuation was
one lakh therefore, on Rs.1,00,000/- the claimants are entitled to get
interest from the date of application but as far as the remaining
enhancement amount is concerned, the interest shall be paid to them
since 13.5.2024. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the cases of National Insurance Company v.
Rammillan Yadav and other (M.A. No.3496 of 2018), Smt. Mahadevi
and others v. Vrandavan Rawat (M.A. No.1088 of 2013) and New
India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Smt. Rekha Bai MACD 2013 (3) (M.P.)
1417.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has
submitted that learned Tribunal has discussed in detail and evaluated the
evidence on record and rightly found proved that the offending vehicle
truck has caused the accident and driver of the offending vehicle was
Dwarika. It is further submitted that the conclusion in respect of the
factum of accident by the learned Tribunal is based on the proper
appropriation of the evidence Naresh who was present on the spot has
categorically stated the factum of accident. He cannot be disbelieved on
the basis of trivial contradictions or omissions. It is further submitted that
deceased Makhan was doing marble cutting business and thus, he was
skilled labour. The income of Makhan Singh has got proved by Ramesh
Chandra (AW/3); hence, looking to the minimum wage of skilled person
in respect of deceased Makhan Singh and unskilled in case of Prag Singh
the claimants are entitled to get compensation amount plus 40% future
prospects as held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Ramhet (AW/4) is injured in this case. Though he has stated the
factum of accident by stating that the truck has dashed the tractor-trolley
and therefore, it was turned turtle and he has sustained injuries. He
categorically stated in the examination-in-chief that Naresh and Dhara
Singh were also present in the tractor, who have seen the registration
number of the offending truck.
7. Naresh (AW/5) is the eye-witness to the accident and he stated that
he was also sitting in the tractor on the date of accident. When the
offending Truck bearing registration No.MP-06-GA-0869 has dashed the
tractor, the tractor-trolley turned turtle and Makhan Singh and Prayag
succumbed and Dhara Singh, Mukesh and Ramhet sustained injuries.
Though he stated that he informed the police about the registration
number of the offending vehicle on the same day, his statement was
recorded by the police on 12.12.2011 i.e. one month after the accident.
The FIR mentions that an unknown truck caused the accident.
8. The statement of Ramhet (AW/4) and Naresh (AW/5) has some
contradictions and variations in their statements but they are of trivial
nature and does not render the testimony of both the witnesses doubtful.
Ramhet (AW/4) has stated that three persons were sitting on the tractor
and remaining persons were sitting in the trolley and at the place of
accident there were pits on the both sides of the road. Though, he has
stated in statement in para-4 that he did not know Ramesh and Bunty but
in chief-examination as well as cross-examination in para-5 at the end he
has stated that Naresh and Bunty has sustained simple injuries. In para-5
he denied the suggestion given that Naresh and Bunty were not present
in the tractor.
9. Naresh (AW/5) has stated in para-2 that though he did not know
Dhara Singh and Bunty but he stated in the same para that at the time of
accident, Makhan Singh, Bunty, Mukesh, Prayag and Dhara Singh were
present in the tractor-trolley. Further he has stated in para-4 of his cross-
examination that after 8 to 10 days of the accident, he went to the police
station and informed the police about the registration number of the
offending truck. He denied that the police has called him on 12.12.2011.
He also stated that the truck was of a red colour.
10. The contradictions and variations in the statement of Ramhet
(AW/4) and Naresh (AW/5) vis a vis police documents did not find to be
of substantial nature. Since the witnesses are villager and their statements
have been recorded in the year 2013-14 while the accident was of 2011;
therefore, such minor nature of contradictions and omissions cannot be
treated to the substantial in nature. Such contradictions and variations do
not render their testimony doubtful.
11. During the investigation, the police has recorded the statement of
Naresh (AW/5) as exhibit P/6. As per his statement, it is found that at the
time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle Dwarika was driving the
offending truck rashly and negligently caused the accident. Eventually,
the police has filed charge sheet against driver- Dwarika under Sections
304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. It cannot be held on the basis of the
FIR that since the FIR contained the fact that unknown truck has caused
the accident then the entire case of claimants be discarded. The purpose
of police investigation is to identify the real culprit and determine how
and in what manner the offence was committed. The result of the
investigation is important in claim cases. Being a state agency, the police
are expected to investigate the matter impartially and to reach a
conclusion based on the evidence collected.
12. In this case, the driver of the offending vehicle has not appeared as
a witness. Only Omprakash (NAW/1) has been examined on behalf of the
non-applicants. He only exhibited the investigator's report as Ex.D/1 but
this witness/ the investigator of insurance company admittedly were not
present at the time of accident and therefore, the testimony of these
witnesses as well as the police documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/19 does not
found to be believable.
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. Here in this case on the anvil of the statements of eye-witness
Ramhet (AW/4) and Naresh (AW/5) coupled with the documents as
Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/19, the learned Tribunal has rightly found the factum of
accident proved as narrated in the claim petition.
17. In the case of National Insurance Company v. Rammillan Yadav
and other (M.A. No.3496 of 2018) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has held that on the basis of evidence and material available on record has
not found proved the factum of accident on the anvil of inherent lacunas
present in the case.
18. In the case of Smt. Mahadevi and others v. Vrandavan Rawat
(M.A. No.1088 of 2013) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held
that on the basis of challan papers filed by the Police and admitting the
factum of accident by the owner of the bus, the accident by the offending
vehicle cannot be accepted until and unless same is proved by evidence,
documentary as well as oral.
19. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Smt. Rekha Bai
MACD 2013 (3) (M.P.) 1417, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
held that police reached on the spot after 10 minutes of the accident,
however, neither in the dehati nailishi nor in the FIR which was recorded
after about one month, any detail of the offending vehicle. Injured
disclosed the registration number of offending vehicle to I.O. after four
months of the incident. Thereafter, I.O. registered a criminal case against
the driver and seized the vehicle. No details of persons present on the spot
were disclosed by the injured in his evidence. No effort was made to to
call the investigating officer to show on what basis he has registered the
criminal case. It is held that the case was of false implication of the
vehicle and therefore, the factum of accident has not found to be proved.
20. The law laid down in aforesaid cases are beyond any iota of doubt
but regard being had to the factual matrix of the particular case and as
discussed above, the claimants have succeeded in proving the factum of
accident as narrated in the claim petition and therefore, the investigating
officer was not at all needed to be examined on behalf of them. On the
principal of preponderance of probabilities, the claimants have
established their case; therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided
the issue No. 1 positively. Hence, the appeals filed on behalf of the
insurance company are found to be merit less.
21. As far as enhancement is concerned, the claimants have examined
Tej Singh (AW/1), father of the deceased, Makhan's wife - Smt. Kamlesh
(AW/2), and Ramesh Chandra (AW/3), the alleged employer of Makhan
Singh to prove that Makhan was working as a tile fitter earning ₹12,000
per month. It was also claimed that deceased Parag Singh had a monthly
income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs 20,000/- from the dairy business. However,
no cogent or reliable evidence has been adduced to support the claimed
income of either deceased. No documents such as income tax records,
appointment letters, bank statements, or account details adduced in the
evidence which could have been conveniently filed before the Tribunal.
22. Mere issuance a certificate (Ex.P/21) is not sufficient for proving
the factum of income of deceased Makhan Singh. Ex.P.21 reveals that this
certificate has been issued by a firm of Goa. No documents is on record
to show that Ramesh Chandra (AW/3) is proprietor or partner of the firm
and authorized to issue this certificate. No tin number, registration
number of firm has been shown. It is also not shown that deceased
Makhan was doing said work at Goa or else where. Hence, this certificate
and statements of Ramesh Chandra (AW/3) is not found to be believable.
23. In absence of cogent and reliable evidence in respect of the
deceased Makhan and Prayaag, the minimum wage of labourer may be
resorted to as declared by the Labour Department. As far as Makhan is
concerned, it is found proved that he before his death was doing the work
of tiles fitting; therefore, he was skilled worker, while no such evidence
in regard to the deceased Prayag, therefore, he may be deemed an
unskilled labourer. Keeping in view the minimum wage of unskilled
labourer it was Rs.4,545/- per month and minimum wage of skilled was
Rs.4,825/- per month. Keeping in view the number of claimants and
dependents on deceased, the dependeny ¾ is appropriate. Keeping in
view the age of Makhan singh, multiplier 17 is appropriate and in the case
of Prayag aged 32 years, appropriate multiplier is 16. The claimants in
both the case are entitled to get 40% towards future prospects. The
claimants are also entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium
for each claimants. They are also entitled to get 15,000/- each towards
funeral expenses and loss of state. Rate of interest is 6% is appropriate.
The calculation of the compensation are as under:
(M.A. No.891/2014):
Sr. No. Head The amount The amount
assessed by the assessed by this
Tribunal Court
1 Income 3,000/- x12= 4,545/- x
36,000/- 12=54,540/-
expenses
3. Dependency 24,000/- 40,905/- (3/4)
4 Future prospects - 16,362/-(40%)
6 Loss of future income 24,000 x 16 40,905+16,362
=3,84,000/- =57,267 x16
9,16,272/-
7. Transportation charges 2000/- -
7. Loss of consortium (widow+ 1,00,000/- 1,60,000/-
Daughter+son+Father (40000 x 4)
6. Loss of funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
7. Loss of estate - 15,000/-
9. Total 5,11,000/- 11,06,272/-
10. Additional enhancement 5,95,272/-
11. Rate of interest 7% 6%
(M.A. No.892 of 2014)
Sr. No. Head The amount The amount
assessed by the assessed by this
Tribunal Court
1 Income 3,000/- x12= 4,825/- x 12
36,000/- =57,900/-
expenses
3. Dependency 24,000/- 43,425/- (3/4)
4 Future prospects - 17,370/- (40%)
6 Loss of future income 24,000 x 16 43,425+17,370/-
=4,08,000/- =60,795 x17
10,33,515/-
7. Transportation charges 2000/- -
7. Loss of consortium (widow + 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
Daughter+son+mother+ (40,000 x5)
Father
6. Loss of funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
7. Loss of estate - 15,000/-
9. Total 5,35,000/- 12,63,515/-
10. Additional enhancement 7,28,515/-
11. Rate of interest 7% 6%
24. The claimants are entitled to get interest on Rs.1,00,000/- since the
date of claim application, on Rs.4,00,000/- since 13.5.2024 when the
court fees has been deposited on enhanced valuation of the appeal.
25. Although the appellants has valued the Misc. appeal No.891/2014
and M.A. No.892 of 2014 at Rs.4,00,000/- and has paid court fees on the
said amount, however, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
Kavita Balothiya and Others vs. Santosh Kumar and Another in Civil
Appeal No. 8053/2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 16558/2024), it is directed that
in M.A. No.891 of 2014, the appellants shall pay the court fees on the
remaining amount of Rs.1,95,272/- (i.e. Rs. 5,95,272/- - Rs. 4,00,000/- )
and in M.A. No.892 of 2014 the appellants shall also pay the Court fees
on the remaining amount of Rs.3,28,515/- (7,28,515/- - 4,00,000/-)
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 said amounts of Rs.1,95,272/- and 3,28,515/-
the interest as aforesaid shall be counted from the date of deposition of
court fee on the said amount.
26. In view of the aforesaid terms, the appeal is disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
