Bhupendra Singh Rajawat vs Ramsingh Gurjar
2025 Latest Caselaw 10943 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhupendra Singh Rajawat vs Ramsingh Gurjar on 10 November, 2025

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28459




                                                                   1                                  MA-4907-2019
                                 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT GWALIOR
                                                             BEFORE
                                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                   ON THE 10 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                     MISC. APPEAL No. 4907 of 2019
                                                    BHUPENDRA SINGH RAJAWAT
                                                             Versus
                                                   RAMSINGH GURJAR AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                  Ms. Meena Singhal - Advocate for the appellant/claimant.
                                  Shri Kamal Kumar Rochlani- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance

                           Company.

                                                                    ORDER

This appeal by the appellant/claimant u/S. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is arising out of the award dated 18/07/2019 passed by Eleventh Additional MACT, District- Gwalior (M.P.) (in short "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.12/2016 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in dispute and the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard are not in question.

3. As per findings of the Claims Tribunal, in the case of injury compensation amount of Rs.62,000/- in regard to injury sustained by the claimant and Rs. 92,442/- under the head of damage of own car i.e. total compensation amount of Rs. 1,54,442/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal with interest from filing of claim petition till its realization.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant filed this appeal on the ground

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28459

2 MA-4907-2019 that claimant received grievous injuries on his leg and also on head but Claims Tribunal awarded only compensation Rs. 62,000/- under the head of injuries which is meagre amount. It is also submitted that during treatment, he incurred Rs. Two Lacs. Therefore, he is seeking enhancement of compensation under the head of diet, physical and mental agony. It is further submitted that in the accident his vehicle bearing registration No. MP07-GA/5072 was also damaged and he incurred Rs. 2,48,323/- in the repairing of his vehicle but Tribunal awarded only Rs. 92,442/- under the head of damage of vehicle.

5. It is contended that Claims Tribunal has committed error in holding that

vehicle of claimant was insured by Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd.

and the aforesaid Insurance Company paid Rs. 1,55,881/- to the service Centre of the

vehicle. It is further submitted that appellant/claimant paid whole amount i.e. Rs.

2,48,323/- to the service centre. It is also submitted that appellant/claimant paid Rs,

1,55,881/- by way of NEFT and remaining amount was paid in cash to the service

Centre, as it is proved by appellant by examining Shri Sharad Bhardwaj (A.W.3) who

is Accountant in Dev Sales, Padav District Gwalior. According to (Ex.P.19), repairing

cost of vehicle is Rs. 2,48,323/- which was paid by appellant/claimant according to

(Ex.P.30), but Claims Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation under

the head of damage of vehicle i.e Rs. 92,442/-. Hence, it is prayed that compensation

amount be enhanced and just and reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company contended that Anurag Shivhare (N.A.W.1), who is Territory Manager of the Royal

Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd. deposed before the Tribunal that Insurance

Company paid directly Rs.1,55,881/- to Dev Sales service Centre in respect of vehicle

of appellant. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has rightly held that OD claim was paid

by Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd to Dev Sales Service Centre. He

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28459

3 MA-4907-2019 supported the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record.

8. First question is that whether claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation with regard to injury sustained by him.

9. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in motor accident, medical documents and treatment bills, it is found that claimant received injuries on his leg and head, but Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs. 62,000/- which is not just and proper. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that appellant/claimant is entitled to lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of injuries.

10. Now, second question arises that whether appellant/claimant paid Rs. 1,55,881/- to the service Centre or Rs. 1,55,881 paid by Royal Sundram General

Insurance Company Ltd. to the service centre for repairing of vehicle of claimant.

11 . Considering the impugned Award, it is clear that it is undisputed that

appellant's vehicle was damaged in accident and according to Ex.P.30, it is found that

Rs. 2,48,323/- was incurred for repairing of vehicle of claimant.

12. Claimant/appellant deposed before the Tribunal that he paid whole amount

of damage of vehicle to the service centre. He further submitted that he paid Rs.

1,55,881/- by NEFT and remaining amount was paid by him in cash to the service

centre.

13. To prove this question, burden lies upon the claimant that he paid Rs. 1,55,881/- by NEFT to the service Centre, but he had not filed any document in this regard.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28459

4 MA-4907-2019

14. Sections 104, 105 and 106 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are reproduced as under:-

" 104. Burden of proof.--Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist, and when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

105. On whom burden of proof lies.--The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side

106.Burden of proof as to particular fact.--The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person."

15. It is the duty of claimant/appellant to prove that he paid Rs. 1,55,881/- by way of NEFT to the service Centre, but he failed to produce any document in this regard, therefore, adverse presumption is drawn against him. On the other hand, Anurag Shivhare (N.A.W.3), who is Territory Manager of Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd. deposed before the Tribunal that vehicle bearing

registration No. MP07/GA-5072 was insured with Insurance Company and he

categorically deposed before the Tribunal that he paid Rs. 1,55,881/- to M/s Dev

Service Centre, Gwalior for service of above-mentioned vehicle.

16. Considering the evidence of Anurag Shivhare (N.A.W.3) and lack of

evidence adduced by appellant/claimant, it is proved that Rs.1,55,881/- was paid to Dev Service Centre by Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd. for repairing of vehicle, not by appellant/claimant.

17. Considering the para Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the impugned Award, it is found that Claims Tribunal has rightly held that Rs.1,55,881/- was paid by Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd to Dev Service Centre for

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28459

5 MA-4907-2019 repairing of vehicle of claimant. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this regard.

18. Accordingly, present appeal is partly-allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. The amount of compensation is enhanced to lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- in the present appeal. The appellant/claimant is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization. All other findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

The present appeal stands disposed of.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi