Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Prabhudayal Jatav on 19 June, 2025
1 M.A. No.1143/2022 & M.A. No.1948/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYAPRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1143 of 2022
PRABHUDAYAL JATAV AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJKISHORE DUBE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.K.S. Kushwah - Advocate for appellants/claimants.
Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar - Advocate for respondent No.3.
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1948 of 2022
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
PRABHUDAYAL & OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar - Advocate for appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri R.K.S. Kushwah - Advocate for respondents No.1& 2.
Shri Devendra Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 6/26/2025
2:58:57 PM
2 M.A. No.1143/2022 & M.A. No.1948/2022
ORDER
This order shall govern disposal of both these Misc. Appeals as
they arise out of common award dated 10.12.2021 passed by the
Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Motor Accident
Claim Case No.45/2015; whereby, learned Claims Tribunal has
awarded a compensation of Rs.8,71,440/- for the death of one Roop
Singh in a road accident.
2. M.A.No.1948/2022 has been filed by appellant/Insurance
Company (hereinafter for convenience shall be referred as "Insurance
Company"); whereas, M.A.No.1143/2022 been filed by the
appellants/claimants (hereinafter for convenience shall be referred as
"claimants").
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.02.2015 at
about 04:30 PM, the deceased, Roop Singh, was coming to village
Santoshpur by motorcycle. As soon as he reached near crusher on
Sabalgarh-Rampur road, the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing
registration number M.P. 06 B 1680, driving rashly and negligently,
dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind, as a result of
which, the deceased sustained various grievous injuries and succumbed
to the same on the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants challenged the
impugned award on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal erred in
assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of order of the
Collector dated 01/12/2024 as Rs.198/- per day which is on lower side.
Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
learned Tribunal has passed the impugned Award without proper
appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. It is contended that
involvement of the insured Bolero No. MP 06 B 1680 has not been
proved by the claimants in the accident and the said vehicle has been
implanted in the accident. As per the Dehati Nalishi, the accident was
caused due to slipping of the motorcycle while driving by the deceased.
As the case was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground of
non-involvement of this vehicle, a close scrutiny of oral and
documentary evidence was required by the learned Tribunal. The said
Dehati Nalishi was lodged by Randhir Singh who is a relative of the
deceased, but he has not been examined by the claimants. Claimants
also did not adduce the evidence of Investigating Officer of the police.
The claimants have examined Manveer Singh (AW-2) who did not
lodge FIR. Testimony of this witness is totally unreliable and it is clear
from his statement that he was not present at the spot at the time of
accident. The Insurance Company has examined Durga Singh
Sisodiaya. This witness has proved that this vehicle has been
repeatedly implanted in seven claim cases between 2012 to 2015. From
his oral testimony and the documents exhibited, it is evident that the
insured Bolero No. MP 06 B 1680 has been falsely implanted in the
present case, and no accident was caused by this vehicle. Hence, the
impugned Award deserves to be set aside and the claim petition filed by
the claimants be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
7. On behalf of the claimants Manveer Singh (AW-2) has been
examined as an eye-witness to the incident. He stated in his chief
examination that on 25.02.2015 he was going on his motorcycle. Vijay
Jatav was also with him. As soon as they reached Sabalgarh Rampur
Road where heap of Gitty of crusher was there, they saw that deceased
Roop Singh was coming on a motorcycle, suddenly offending jeep
bearing registration No.MP06 B 1680 being driven rashly and
negligently came and dashed the motorcycle of deceased Roop Singh
from the backside, as a result of which he died on the spot. This
witness has stated that he has informed the police after the accident, but
Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/12), first information report, has been lodged on
the information given by Randheer. Such variation being not material
does not render his testimony doubtful. It is pertinent to mention here
that Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/12) which is the first information report has
been lodged by Randheer at police Station Sabalgarh. Perusal of this
Dehati Nalishi shows that Randheer was not an eye-witness to the
accident. It is stated in Dehati Nalishi that Randheer was at his home.
Around 4.30 pm he heard about the accident that Roop Singh along
with Anku was coming to Sabalgarh with gas cylinder, but motorcycle
got slipped and the accident occurred. However, it is not revealed from
this Dehati Nalishi and record submitted on behalf of the parties that
this Randheer later on visited the spot. Therefore, Randheer was not an
eye-witness to the accident. As such, non-examination of Randheer
does not adversely affect the case of the claimants.
8. Manveer Singh (AW-2) admitted that he is acquainted with the
deceased and his family, but it is not revealed from his statement that
on the basis of such acquaintance he is giving false evidence qua the
accident. Witness Manveer Singh (AW-2) is also a listed witness in the
final report Ex.P/1, which has been submitted under section 304-A of
IPC against Hotam son of Sitaram/ respondent No.2, who was the
driver of the offending vehicle. Manveer (AW-2) has been marked as
Ghatna Sthal Sakchi in Ex.P/1, therefore the statement of Manveer
Singh as an eye-witness cannot be thrown away.
9. The perusal of the record shows that after lodging Dehati Nalishi
(Ex.P/12) Merg report (Ex.P/8) has been registered on the same day i.e.
25.02.2015 and Merg enquiry has started. A document in the form of
report has been submitted by Insurance Company as Ex.D/16 showing
that this document is the report of Merg enquiry and such report has
been given on 22.03.2015 while before that original offence Ex.P/2 has
been registered under Section 304-A of IPC by police Sabalgarh on
21.03.2015. On this basis, learned counsel for Insurance Company
submits that registration of main offence before the Merg enquiry
report renders the entire proceedings doubtful.
10. Perusal of Ex.P/2, FIR, shows that it has been registered on
21.03.2015 on the basis of Merg enquiry report, but whether document
Ex.D/16 is Merg enquiry report ? has not been established satisfactorily
by the insurance company. Though this report is showing that it is the
enquiry report, but this document on his left side has a remark made by
the police Station In-charge and contained the direction to Head
Constable Mansingh to register the offence and submit challan before
the court. This instruction has been given on 21/3/2015 and whatever
report has been submitted on this document is mentioned leaving the
space of such remark which shows that after mentioning such remark
this conclusion has been prepared. It is not possible that before giving
Merg enquiry report, a direction to register offence may be given by the
police Station In-charge to Head Constable Mansingh. It indicates that
original Merg enquiry report has been given on 21/3/2015 and
thereupon police Station In-charge officer has given direction to Head
Constable Mansingh on the same day to register the offence and submit
before the Court and later on, on document (Ex.D/16), a conclusion
report (Nishkarsh) has been written. This document also contains the
statements of the witnesses, which are Ex.D/17 to Ex.D/22 and these
statements have been taken on 22.03.2015 that is after registration of
the offence under section 304-A of IPC. These documents have
contained the section under which offence has been registered and the
crime number 98/2015 which reveals that these statements are taken
during the course of investigation and not during Merg enquiry. It
supports the assumption that Ex.D/16 is not the original Merg enquiry
report on which Ex.P/2 has been registered. The complete document of
case diary or challan has not been filed before the learned Tribunal,
hence, aforesaid argument does not render any support to the insurance
company.
11. Since the eye-witness Manveer Singh (AW2) has been examined
on behalf of the claimants which remained intact on his statement in
the cross-examination and the relevant documents have been exhibited
and proved by the claimants, therefore, investigating officer was not at
all needed to be examined before the learned Tribunal.
12. As far as the testimony of Raj Kishore (NAW-1) and Durga
Singh (NAW-2) are concerned, Raj Kishore though stated that no
accident was occurred with his vehicle bearing registration number
MP06 B 1680, but he admitted in cross-examination that he has taken
this vehicle on Supurdginama from the court and against his driver a
criminal case is being tried in Sabalgarh Court arising out of this
accident. He has not lodged any complaint in writing that his vehicle
has been implicated falsely in the accident.
13. Durga Singh (NAW-2) has stated in his statement that against the
offending vehicle there were 7 accident cases have been registered
between the year 2012 to 2015. Information of two cases have been
submitted by him. He also submitted that he has also filed a copy of
daily newspaper and the written complaint made to SP Morena, but he
admitted in cross-examination that documents Ex.D-5C to Ex.D-14C
have been prepared before his joining and he has not prepared these
documents. On behalf of the insurance company no case has been
lodged against the owner of the vehicle. Having considered the fact
revealed from the cross-examination of this witness, the learned
Tribunal has not erred in disbelieving the daily newspaper and also the
fact that as many as 7 cases have been registered against the offending
vehicle because this fact per se is not sufficient to discredit the
evidence in support of the claim petition. Since it is revealed from the
statements of the witnesses that Anku was a child, therefore, his non-
examination also does not dent the claim case.
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. In the light of the discussion and the judgments as aforesaid, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly
concluded on issues No.1 to 3, therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of
the Insurance Company is found to be meritless.
18. As far as the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants is concerned,
claimants have challenged the impugned award on the quantum only.
Learned counsel for the claimants has pressed the appeal on the ground
of assumption of income of the deceased on lower side who was 20
years of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has assumed the
income of the deceased as Rs.198/- per day @ 25 days in a month i.e.
4,950/- per month. But the notification issued by the Labour
Department from time to time reveals that minimum wages of an
unskilled labourer at the time of alleged accident in February, 2015 was
Rs.5,895/- per month. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
income of the deceased ought to be taken as Rs.5,895/- per month. The
learned Tribunal has considered the dependency as ½ as the deceased
was bachelor and applied multiplier of 18, which is appropriate looking
to the age of the deceased. 40% future prospect has also rightly been
applied.
19. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed and
the claimants would be entitled for the following compensation:-
Sr.No Head Amount of Amount of
compensation Compensation
awarded by assessed by this
Claims Tribunal Court
1 Income of the deceased 59,400/- 70,740/-
(per annum)
2 Deduction towards 29,700/- 35,370/-
personal expenses
3 Future prospect 11,880/- 14,148/-
4 Dependency of the 29,700/- 35,370/-
claimants
6 Loss of dependency 7,48,440 8,91,324/-
[(29,700+11,880 [(35370+14148)
)x18} x18]
7 Transport 2,000/- 2,000/-
8 Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/-
9 Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/-
10 Loss of filial 88,000/- 88,000/-
consortium
11 Total 8,71,440/- 10,14,324/-
12 Additional 1,42,884/-
enhancement
20. Resultantly, M.A.No.1948/2022 filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed and M.A.No.1143/2022 filed by the claimants is allowed in
above terms. Rest of the terms & conditions of the impugned award
shall remain intact.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Aman/ms/-
