Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance vs Jagdish Sharma And 6 Ors. on 25 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34229
1 MA-298-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 298 of 2010
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
Versus
JAGDISH SHARMA AND 6 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.V.Dandwate - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manish S Jain - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated
28.10.2009 passed in Claim Case No. 36/2009. The appellant / Insurance
Company along with the appeal has also filed an application I.A.No.
425/2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 for bringing additional documents on
record with respect to driving licence of the driver of the insured vehicle.
2. The respondents/claimants have also filed cross-objection raising
the question of future prospects, lesser amount of compensation in non-
pecuniary heads, non application of multiplier as well as compensation for
loss of consortium. It is also contended that deduction of 50% is not
proper.
3. During the course of arguments, it was disclosed by the counsel
for the claimants that respondent No. 1 has died. Faced with this, counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34229
2 MA-298-2010
the appellant / Insurance Company submits that this information was never
received by the appellant / Insurance Company hence, no steps could be
taken. thus, he made an oral prayer for deleting the name of respondent No.
1 from the array of respondents.
4. Considering the fact that the legal representatives of respondent
No.1 are already on record as respondents No. 2 to 4, the oral request of the
counsel is accepted. The deletion of name of respondent No. 1 is permitted
on board which shall be carried out during the course of the day.
5. Facts relevant to the case are that on 28.03.2008 at around 7:25 in
the evening, the deceased Manish Sharma along with his friend was going on
a motor cycle to Kota via Bada Nayagaon. When he reached near Silon
crossroad, the truck-trailer bearing registration No. RJ 02 G 9447 came
which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the
motor cycle of Manish because of which Manish and his friend suffered
grievous injuries. He was rushed to hospital but died on 01.04.2018 during
treatment. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation for death of Manish. The Tribunal after
recording evidence held that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the
insured vehicle which caused the accident and accordingly, a total
compensation of Rs. 12,76,240/- was awarded.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company submits
that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has fastened liability to
pay the same upon Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company
has raised a specific defence before the Tribunal that the driver of the insured
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34229
3 MA-298-2010
vehicle at the time of accident was not having a valid driving licence for
operating heavy motor vehicle. He further submits that to prove this
contention, time was sought before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal
declined the same and fastened the liability to pay compensation on
the Insurance Company. He points out that later it was found in the
investigation that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having licence for
the category to the which the insured vehicle belongs. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the licence
verification report dated 17.12.2008 appended to the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27.
7. A perusal of the report would show that in Item No. 8 - Type of
Licence and Item No.9 - Endorsement has been given. The Type of Licence
provides that the driver was eligible to drive motor cycle, light motor vehicle
(LMV) and transport vehicle only and the Endorsement provides that for
motor cycle and LMV, validity was w.e.f. 11.04.2005 to 10.02.2021 and for
transport vehicle validity was w.e.f. 20.01.2007 to 19.01.2010 only. The date
of accident is 28.03.2008, hence, the operative period of the licence would
cover the date of accident. The only question which remains before the
Court is whether the licence was for operating heavy vehicles or not.
8. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the form and
contents of licence to drive. Sub-section 2 provides different categories of
vehicle in which at (e) transport vehicle is provided. In turn, the definition
of transport vehicle is given in Section 2(47) of the Act which provides
that, transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34229
4 MA-298-2010
educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. It is thus clear that a
goods carriage vehicle has also been provided in the definition of transport
vehicle. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, even the licence
verification report which has been brought on record by the Insurance
Company provides that the driver of the insured vehicle on the date of
accident was having a valid driving to operate the insured vehicle. For the
sake of clarity, it is to be noted that prior to 14.11.1994, there were different
categories of vehicle, however, from 14.11.1994 those categories were
merged in transport vehicle. As such, now the heavy motor vehicle would be
covered under transport vehicle. In view of the above analysis and the
provisions of law, the appeal by the Insurance Company does not hold any
water.
9. Now, the cross-objection of the claimants / respondents No. 2 to 4
is to be dealt with. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the claimants is that the deceased on the date of accident was 25 years
and one month old as demonstrated vide Exh. P/3 the driving licence.
However, the Claims Tribunal while quantifying the amount of
compensation has taken into account the age of mother and multiplier of 13
has been applied which as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and
another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 should have been 18.
10. The next contention of learned counsel for the claimants is that
nothing has been awarded for future prospects whereas the deceased was a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34229
5 MA-298-2010
salaried employee thus, 40% addition should have been made in his income
under this head. He also submits that the claimants are mother and two
siblings, thus the Tribunal should have awarded consortium to all of them.
In other heads, he points out that Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for loss of
estate and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. He thus submits that the
compensation should be enhanced accordingly.
11. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that the Tribunal has correctly not awarded compensation for loss of
consortium because the two siblings are not covered under the law as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, AIR OnLine 2018 SC 1249. It is
only the mother and father who are entitled for consortium. He also opposes
the addition of future prospects by arguing that on the date when the award
was pronounced, the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) was not in existence,
hence, the Tribunal has correctly not added anything under the head of future
prospects.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of enhancement
of compensation as per the cross objection of the claimants. Perused the
record.
12. As regards the future prospects, the Claims Tribunal accepted the
fact that the deceased was receiving salary still it did not add anything under
the head of future prospects by observing that it was not a fixed job of the
deceased hence 50% addition under the head of future prospects cannot be
made. Once, this conclusion was drawn by the Tribunal then the natural
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34229
6 MA-298-2010
corollary was to add 40% in the income of the deceased under the head of
future prospects considering that he was 25 years of age and as per the
Tribunal itself was receiving monthly salary. As such 40% addition is
hereby done in the income of the deceased.
13. As regards consortium, the claim was filed by mother, father and
two siblings of the deceased. In view of the law as laid down in the case
o f Magma (supra), Rs. 40,000/- each is awarded to mother and father. In
view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla
Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) , it is the age of the deceased and not
of the claimant which is to be taken for applying the multiplier. As such the
multiplier is changed from 13 to 18 as per column number 4 of the table
provided in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) . As regards compensation for
loss of estate, it is modified to Rs. 15,000/- and similar is the case for funeral
expenses i.e. total amount of Rs. 30,000/-.
14. In view of the above changes in the income of the deceased,
additions and modification, the total compensation would now come to Rs.
25,36,336/-. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs. 12,76,240/-
, the claimants are now entitled for Rs. 12,50,096/- over and above the
amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application
before the Claims Tribunal.
15. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby
dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the claimants is allowed in the
above terms.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34229
7 MA-298-2010
16. The deficit court fees as per the quantification of compensation
done by this order be paid by the claimants within a period of four weeks
from today.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
vidya
