Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited ... vs Smt. Malti on 10 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
1 MA-819-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 10th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 819 of 2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL
OFFICE AT CENTRE POINT COMPLEX
Versus
SMT. MALTI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company.
Shri S.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 6-
claimants.
Shri Saket Chhiroliya - Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 9.
ORDER
This misc. appeal by the Insurance Company u/S. 173 (1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is arising out of the award dated 09.05.2012 passed
by Member, MACT, Vidisha District- Vidisha (M.P.) (in short "Claims
Tribunal") in Claim Case No.29/2011, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,85,000/- with interest which shall be payable by
owner and Insurance Company jointly and severally to the claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 is the wife of
deceased Laxman Singh, respondents No. 2 to 4 are minor sons and daughter
of deceased and respondents no. 5 and 6 are father and mother of deceased.
All of them preferred a claim application u/s.163-A of Motor Vehicle Act for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
2 MA-819-2012
realizing an amount of compensation of Rs.33,10,000/- for the death of
deceased Laxman Singh, who died on account of allegedly driving of Tractor
bearing No.MP-40-MA-1806 on the fateful day and the aforesaid Tractor
was insured with appellant- Insurance Company.
3. Appellant/Insurance company filed written statement and submitted
that at the time of accident, the insured alleged tractor was not being driven
by deceased- Laxman Singh and the same was being driven by respondent
No.9- Shakti Singh, however, deceased- Laxman Singh was travelling in the
alleged tractor as a gratuitous passenger. As per the insurance policy, no
premium for covering the risks of such gratuitous passenger was charged,
hence, no liability lies upon the Insurance company to pay compensation in
favour of claimants.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed the issues and after recording the
evidence of the parties, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,85,000/-
along with interest in favour of claimants.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, appellant/Insurance
Company has filed this misc. appeal on the ground that the award passed by
the Claims Tribunal is against the facts and material available on record and
against the settled principles of law. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in
deciding issue No. 2 against the appellant/Insurance Co. It is submitted that
from the documentary proof in shape of First Information Report and other
criminal record, it was amply proved that at the time of mis-happening, the
insured Tractor was being driven by respondent No. 9 - Shakti Singh and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
3 MA-819-2012
deceased Laxman Singh was sitting as a gratuitous passenger on the bonnet
of the alleged offending vehicle (Tractor). It is further submitted that the
Claims Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that it is a cardinal
principle of law that "a man may lie but circumstances do not" as the facts
narrated in shape of First Information Report are earliest in the point of time,
hence, are close to the truth and as such, are more trustworthy. Hence, it is
prayed that impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal be set aside
and the appellant/Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants has supported the
impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal and submitted that from
the evidence of Sher Singh, who had first given merg intimation of the
accident to the police, although it appears that he has not mentioned in his
information given to police that Laxman Singh was sitting on the tractor and
Shakti Singh was driving the alleged tractor but respondent No.9- Shakti
Singh, who is the driver of the alleged tractor in his evidence before Claims
Tribunal has specifically admitted that deceased Laxman Singh was driving
the offending vehicle and he was sitting on the tractor. On the basis of such
evidence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that deceased - Laxman Singh
was driving the alleged tractor and has not committed any error in awarding
the impugned award in favour of claimants. Hence, prayed for dismissal of
this appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
award as well as record of the Claims Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
4 MA-819-2012
8. FIR as lodged for the alleged accident is reproduced as under:-
"मै थाना सलामतपुर मे 0आ0 के पद पर पद थ हू ं थाना हाजा के मग 6/11 धारा - 174
सी0आर0पी0सी क जांच के दौरान गवाहन, शेरिसंह मालतीबाई, तुलसी राम महे रा व
भानिसंह व ीतम िसंह िन0 सलामतपुर के कथन िलये गये जससे आरे ापी श िसंह के
व अप0 धारा 304 (A) IPC का पाया जाने से पंजी वहकर ववे0 म िलया गया, नकल
मग इ ट मेशन इस कार है थाना सलामतपुर ज0 रायसेन नाम सूचनाकता शेरिसंह S/o
जग नाथ िसंह राजपूत 55 वष िन0 सुनार नाम मृतक - ल मणिसंह S/o अमानिसंह ठाकुर
30 वष िन0 सलामतपुर घटना थल - दग
ु ा यादव के घर के सामने मेन रोड सलामतपुर
घटना द0 23/1/11 के शाम 5/30 बजे कायमी द0 23/1/11 के 21/25 बजे कारण मौत े टर
के नीचे दब जाने से आयी चौट के कारण जांचकता HC/35 राकेश यादव ववरण ाम
सुनार रहता हू ं खेती करता हू ं आज मेरा भांजा ल मण िसंह े टर 0 MP-40-MA1806
सामी से खेत गया था वह से वापस आ रहा था े टर को श िसंह चला रहा था ल मण िसंह
बैठा था जब े टर दग
ु ा यादव के घर के सामने आया तो े टर अचानक पलट गया जसमे
ल मण े टर के नीचे दब गया जससे उसे चोटे आयी ल मण को हम इलाज के िलये
भोपाल ले जा रहे थे तो रा ते म उसक मृ यु हो गयी तो मण िसंह क लाश को लेकर
रपोट करने आया हू ं रपोट कहे अनुसार िलखी है sd शेर िसंह नोट- रपोटर पर मग सदा
कायम कर जांच म िलया गया sd HC/35 राकेश ."
9. The aforesaid document was produced on behalf of the claimants in
which it was mentioned that deceased- Laxman Singh was sitting on the
tractor and respondent No.9 Shakti Singh was driving the alleged tractor.
Sher Singh who recorded merg intimation vide Ex.D-5 in which his signature
has been mentioned and contents of such merg intimation are reproduced as
under:-
"मै ाम सुनार रहता हू ं खेती करता हू ं आज मेरा भा जा ल मणिसंह े टर MP-40-
MA1806 सामी से खेत गया था वहां से वा पस आ रहा था े टर को श िसंह चला रहा था
ल मण िसंह बैठा था जब े टर दग
ु ा यादव के घर के सामने आया तो े टर अचानक पलट
गया जसमे ल मण े टर के नीचे दब गया जससे उसे चोटे आयी ल मण को हम इलाज
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
5 MA-819-2012
के िलये भोपाल ले जा रहे थे क रा ते म उसक मृ यु हो गयी तो मण िसंह क लाश को
लेकर रपोट करने आया हू ं रपोट कहे अनुसार िलखी है "
10. Respondent No.9- Shakti Singh has been examined himself as
witness in favour of claimants and accepted that although he had informed
the police but he did not inform about the incident that the deceased was
driving the tractor.
11. Considering the criminal documents, it was not in dispute that the
police had registered a case against the driver/respondent No.9- Shakti Singh
and filed the charge-sheet against him. It is settled principle of law that if
police registered a case against the offending vehicle and after investigation,
filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, then the
Claims Tribunal shall presume the guilty of driver of the offending vehicle,
but this presumption is rebuttable in evidence. A person who claimed that the
accident was not occurred by the offending vehicle, then burden always lies
upon him to rebut the presumption by way of adducing direct or oral
evidence by the claimants. The claimants in the statement deposed that the
offending vehicle was being driven by deceased- Laxman Singh, but the
police has registered offence against respondent No.9 Shakti Singh and filed
the charge-sheet against him. So, burden of proof lies upon the claimants to
prove that police has wrongly registered case against respondent No.9-
Shakti Singh.
12. Sher Singh accepted in his cross-examination that firstly he
informed the police in regard to the alleged accident. He denied in his cross-
examination that deceased was driving the offending tractor and he has not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
6 MA-819-2012
informed the police that deceased was sitting on the tractor. But, in Ex.D-5,
signature of Sher Singh has been found. So, it is the duty of Sher Singh to
lodge the complaint against the police officer who wrote wrong information
that deceased was sitting on the tractor. But, Sher Singh has not lodged any
complaint against the police officer who wrote his complaint, so that an
adverse presumption can be drawn against the evidence of Sher Singh.
13. Shakti Singh, who is the accused in the alleged accident accepted
in his evidence that police registered a case against him and filed charge-
sheet against him, but he has also not given any complaint to the higher
police official that the police has wrongly registered a case against him, so
that an adverse presumption can be drawn against the evidence of Shakti
Singh.
14. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla and Ors.
reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3591, Hon'ble Apex Court held that:-
''13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the
First Information Report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the
contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing
the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that
the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been
proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an
Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them.
14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned
Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying
upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been
proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of
reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on
the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance
with law, would not arise.
15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its
objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the
document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a
party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other
party has been obtained, the former in our opinion cannot be permitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
7 MA-819-2012
to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents
had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon.''
15. In the present case, claimants filed the FIR Ex.P-1 in which it was
mentioned that Shakti Singh was driving the offending vehicle (tractor) and
deceased- Laxman Singh was sitting on the tractor, therefore, Shakti Singh
cannot be permitted to see FIR Ex.P-1 for the purpose of alleged accident
and cannot be permitted to disown the fact that deceased Laxman Singh was
sitting on the offending vehicle. Therefore, considering the charge-sheet and
evidence of the claimants as well as the Insurance Company, it is clearly
proved that at the time of accident deceased - Laxman Singh was not driving
the offending vehicle, but he was sitting on the tractor. So, finding of the
Claims Tribunal in this regard is erroneous and is hereby set-aside.
16. From the evidence available on record, it appears that although due
to the accident, deceased was fell down from the tractor and died and at the
time of accident he was travelling on the bonnet of the tractor, but it was not
meant for carrying passenger and thereby, terms and conditions of insurance
policy have been violated.
17. In the case of V. Renganthan and another vs.V. Renganthan and
another vs. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another
2023 ACJ Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another
2023 ACJ 623623 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the tractor met
with the accident resulting in the death of the person travelling on the
mudguard of the tractor, then Insurance Company is also liable to pay the
compensation and entitled to recover the amount from the owner of tractor.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
8 MA-819-2012
18. In the case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Others Shivaraj v. Rajendra
and Others , 2018 ACJ 2755,, 2018 ACJ 2755, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated a similar view in paragraphs 9 and 10, which are as follows:
9. The High Court, however, found in favour of respondent
No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a
passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the
tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying
goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that
neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the
tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the
tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate
only one person namely the driver. As a result, the Insurance
Company (respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss or injuries
suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor.
That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is
unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.
10. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present
case the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant
(appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor
owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this
Court in National National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh
& Ors ACJ.1(SC); Mangla Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh
& Ors ACJ.1(SC); Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.2018 ACJ 1300 (SC), Rani Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.2018 ACJ 1300 (SC), Rani Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
2018 ACJ 2430 (SC) and Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018
ACJ 2430 (SC) and Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh
2017 ACJ 1031(SC). In other words, the High Court should have
partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2.
Appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to
respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation
amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the
tractor owner (respondent No.1).
19. In the case of Satish Chandra Upadhyay and Others vs. Harnam
Satish Chandra Upadhyay and Others vs. Harnam Singh and Others Singh
and Others, vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed in M.A. No. 224 of, vide
order dated 04.03.2020 passed in M.A. No. 224 of 20112011 , the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-
" Insurance is a statutory contract between the insured and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
9 MA-819-2012
insurer. By which, the insurer indemnifies the insured against all
the compensation, which may be claimed against him. However,
the insurance company can avoid its liability on the ground that
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated by
the insured. Therefore, it is an inter se dispute between the insured
and the insurer. If the insurance company is of a view that the
conditions of the insurance policy were violated and it is not
responsible to pay the compensation, then the insurance company
can always recover the amount from the insured. Since, the
insurance company has the right to recover the amount by
execution of the impugned award itself and is not required to
institute a separate suit, therefore, it is held that although the
insurance company is exonerated due to violations of the
conditions of insurance policy but it shall satisfy the award with
a right to recover the compensation amount from the
owner/driver."
20. In the case of Chintu and Others v. Gulab Singh and others Chintu
and Others v. Gulab Singh and others vide order dated 26.03.2019 passed in
M.A. No. 1130 of 2005 order dated 26.03.2019 passed in M.A. No. 1130 of
2005, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held in paragraphs 10 and 11
as under:
10. In the present case, the Insurance Policy was filed by the
Claimants themselves, which has not been disputed by any of the
parties. Thus, without applying the doctrine of strict proof, it is
held that the Tractor and Trolley were insured for agricultural
purposes, and the deceased was travelling in the trolley and she
was not covered under the Insurance Policy. Thus, it is clear that
there was a violation of Insurance Policy and thus, the Insurance
Company is not jointly and severally liable along with the
owner and driver.
11. However, in the light of the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in the cases of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra Shivaraj Vs.
Rajendra reported in (2018) 10 in (2018) 10 SCC 432, SCC 432,
Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. TATA AIG General Amrit Paul
Singh and Another vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and
Others Insurance Co. Ltd and Others reported in 2018(3) TAC 1
(SC) 2018(3) TAC 1 (SC) a n d Shamanna and Another vs.
Divisional Manager, Oriental Shamanna and Another vs.
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
Others Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018)
9 SCC (2018) 9 SCC 650650, the Insurance Company is held
liable to pay compensation amount with liberty to recover the
same from the owner of the tractor.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21320
10 MA-819-2012
21. Having considered the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, though
there is a breach of the policy condition in the present case, the Insurance
Company cannot avoid its liability to first pay the amount of compensation
to the claimants, however, the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to
recover the said amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings of the Claims Tribunal
needs to be modified and it was found that owner and driver have breached
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurance Co. is
liable to pay the compensation first with liberty to recover the same from
owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
22. In view of aforesaid modification and discussion, the instant appeal
filed by the Insurance Company stands disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
