Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajkumari vs Sanjay Narware on 4 November, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
1 MA-129-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 129 of 2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
SMT. RAJKUMARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamal S.Rochlani - Advocate for the appellant/Owner.
Shri Arun Sharma- Advocate for respondent No.7.
Shri Rajkumar Singh - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6/claimants.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 442 of 2007
SMT. RAJKUMARI AND OTHERS
Versus
SANJAY NARWARE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajkumar Singh Kushwah- Advocate for appellants/claimants.
Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Kamal Rochlani - Advocate for respondent No.1-A.
ORDER
Since both the appeals arising out of the common award dated
31.10.2006 passed by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Fast Track Court, Morena, in Claim Case No. 61/2004, therefore, they are
heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard on IA No.6768/2007 (in MA No.442/2007), an application
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
2 MA-129-2007
under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
4. MA No.129/2007 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act by the appellant/owner of vehicle- National Insurance
Company Ltd. (not as a insurer), being aggrieved by the common impugned
award dated 31.10.2006, seeking exoneration from its liability.
5. MA No.442/2007 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act by the claimants, being aggrieved by the common impugned
award dated 31.10.2006, on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and
seeking enhancement thereof.
6. The date of accident and negligence are not in dispute, and the
findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in that regard are not under
challenge.
7. As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, concerning the death of
Nawab Singh in motor accident, compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- has been
awarded with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization.
8 . In MA No.129/2007:- Owner of offending vehicle/National
Insurance Co. Ltd filed this appeal on the ground that the impugned Award
passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the settled principles of law and
suffers from serious errors of appreciation of evidence and has been rendered
without due consideration of the facts available on record. It is specifically
contended that the vehicle involved in the accident, bearing registration
number DN H 8855, had already been sold to respondent No. 9, and actual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
3 MA-129-2007
possession thereof had been handed over to the said purchaser. Subsequently,
respondent No. 9 further sold the said vehicle to respondent No. 7.
Accordingly, at the time of the alleged accident, the vehicle was neither
under the control nor the supervision of the appellant/National Insurance
Company Ltd. Therefore, the appellant submits that it was not the actual
owner of the offending vehicle and cannot be held liable to pay
compensation to the claimants. In view of the above, it is most respectfully
prayed that the impugned Award be set aside, and the appellant be
exonerated from any liability arising therefrom. In support of his arguments,
he relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Anamika vs. Jaipal Singh 2023 ACJ 2013 wherein in para 5 it has been held
as under:-
"In that view, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not
justified in modifying the finding which had been rendered by the
MACT towards liability. To that extent, we note that the MACT
was justified in its conclusion and as such, the registered owner as
well as the subsequent purchaser in the instant case would remain
liable and the registered owner, who is stated to have sold the
vehicle, would be entitled to make appropriate recoveries from
their vendee but they would still remain liable to the
appellants/claimants herein."
9 . In MA No.442/2007:- The claimants have preferred the present
appeal on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave
error in assessing the income of the deceased and has consequently awarded
compensation on the lower side. It is submitted that the alleged accident
occurred on 30.04.2003, resulting in the death of Nawab Singh in a motor
vehicle accident. However, the Claims Tribunal failed to consider a
reasonable assessment in the income of deceased and therefore, awarded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
4 MA-129-2007
inadequate compensation. It is further contended that in the absence of
documentary evidence regarding the income of deceased, it was the duty of
the Claims Tribunal to assess the same in accordance with the provisions of
the Minimum Wages Act. The Tribunal also erred in not adding an
appropriate amount towards future prospects and in failing to award just and
reasonable compensation under the conventional heads, namely, loss of
consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. Accordingly, the appellants
pray for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Claims
Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals
opposed the appeals preferred by each other and prayed for dismissal of the
respective appeals.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
Claims Tribunal.
MA No.129/2007:-
12. It is undisputed that appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd.,
is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. However, the said vehicle
was sold by the appellant to respondent No. 9, who subsequently sold it to
respondent No. 7. Consequently, at the relevant time, the vehicle was neither
under the control nor in the possession of the appellant. Section 2 (30) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines as under:-
"owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands
registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such
minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a
hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an
agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the
vehicle under that agreement"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
5 MA-129-2007
In view of the provisions contained in Section 2(30) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the "owner" of a motor vehicle is deemed to be the
person in whose name the vehicle stands registered. Accordingly, for all
legal purposes, the registered owner is to be treated as the owner of the said
vehicle.
13. In the case of Brij Bihari Gupta vs. Manmet and Ors. 2025
LiveLaw SC 787, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that insurer of registered
owner liable to compensate third-party losses arising out of vehicle, if
vehicle's registration was not changed after transfer. Agreement between the
registered owner and the appellant clearly indicated that registration would
only be transferred after full sale consideration was paid, which had not
occurred. The registered owner remained the owner and thus liable to
compensate the victims.
14. In the present case, it remains undisputed that the
appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd., continues to be the registered
owner of the offending vehicle, as no transfer of ownership has been effected
or recorded in the records of the Regional Transport Office (RTO). In the
case of Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. 2018 3 SCC 1, the definition
of owner in the Act of 1988 was interpreted to facilitate fulfillment of the
object of the law, which was not to burden the claimant to follow the trail of
successive transfers. The liability to pay falls squarely on the registered
owner, even if there has been successive transfers which has to be
indemnified by the insurer.
15. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
6 MA-129-2007
National Insurance Company Ltd., being the registered owner of the
offending vehicle, is rightly held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
Hence, no illegality, infirmity, irregularity, or perversity is found in the
impugned Award warranting interference by this Court. Appeal filed by
appellant/ National Insurance Company Ltd. (MA No.129/2007) fails and is
hereby dismissed.
MA No.442/2007:-
16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, it is found that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the
income of the deceased on the lower side. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the just and proper assessment of the deceased's income, as per the
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act applicable to an unskilled labour at
the time of accident, would be Rs. 2,124/- per month instead of Rs.1,250/-
per month as erroneously assessed by the Claims Tribunal.
17. So far as the contention of counsel for claimants with regard to
loss of consortium is concerned, in the light of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur and others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131 , claimants are entitled
to get compensation towards loss of consortium. Further, under the head of
loss of estate and funeral expenses, claimants are also entitled for Rs.30,000/-
.
18. As regards loss of income including future prospects, in the light
of judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ
2700, the claimants are entitled for loss of income including future prospects
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
7 MA-129-2007
of 40%. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
and ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121, even if age of the deceased is to be taken into account, multiplier of 17
has rightly been applied by the Claims Tribunal.
19. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to get compensation under the
following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.2124 X 12= 25,488/- pa
Future Prospects@40% Rs.35,683/-
Dependency 3/4 Rs.26,762/-
Multiplier 17 Rs. 4,54,960/-
Other Heads:-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Compensation = Rs.7,24,960/-
20. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant
case is Rs.7,24,960/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of
Rs.1,84,500/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an
additional sum of Rs.5,40,460/- over and above the amount, which has been
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
21. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by
enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.5,40,460/. The enhanced
amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal from the
date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The said amount be paid
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28052
8 MA-129-2007
remain intact.
22. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the
valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall
be deposited by the claimants within a period of one month and proof
thereof, shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry shall
issue the certified copy of the order passed today.
23. In view of the above, miscellaneous appeal No.442/2007 filed by
the claimants stands disposed of.
24. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in connected MA
No.442/2007.
25. C.C. as per rules.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
