[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Samreen Bee vs Vinod Kumar on 15 April, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
1 MA-2498-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2154 of 2020
VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SAMREEN BEE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal -Advocate for appellants/owner and driver of
offending vehicle.
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput-Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.4/Insurance
Company.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2498 of 2020
SMT. SAMREEN BEE AND OTHERS
Versus
VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshu Gupta- Advocate for appellant/claimants.
Shri Rohit Bansal- Advocate for respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle.
Shri B.K. Agarwal- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
ORDER
1. MA No. 2154/2020 has been filed by owner and driver of offending
vehicle being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 29/01/2020 passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
2 MA-2498-2020
M e m b e r Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Vidisha (M.P.)
(hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.
112/2018 on the ground of total exoneration from liability, whereas MA
No.2498/2020 has been filed by claimants against the same award on the
ground of enhancement of compensation amount.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of a common award and involve
identical facts and issues, they were heard together and are being decided by
this common order.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2018, deceased Imran
Qureshi was riding his motorcycle when a tractor bearing registration No.
MP40-AB-9361, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him,
resulting in grievous injuries. He was initially taken to District Hospital,
Vidisha and thereafter to Paliwal Hospital, Bhopal, where he succumbed to
the injuries. An FIR was registered and after due investigation, charge-sheet
was filed. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
4. The Insurance Company as well as the owner and driver filed their
written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition. Upon
appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in
favour of the claimants and held that there was breach of policy conditions
on the part of the owner. Accordingly, the Insurance Company was directed
to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
3 MA-2498-2020
5. Learned counsel for the owner and driver of offending vehicle in
MA No.2154/2020 submitted that the impugned award is illegal and
contrary to law. It is contended that though the vehicle was not registered on
the date of accident, the same was subsequently registered on 06.04.2018 and
the sale letter had been issued on 04.04.2018. It is further submitted that the
Insurance Company has failed to prove that non-registration of the vehicle
constituted a breach of policy conditions. It is also submitted that in the case
of third party accident permanent registration with RTO is not primary
requirement of Section 149 of the MV Act, although it was done within 2
months from the date of purchase of tractor but inspite of this the learned
tribunal has committed error. Hence, it is prayed that the liability be fastened
upon the Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the Claimants in MA No.2498/2020 submitted that
Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant/claimant has preferred
this appeal on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month despite there being evidence
that the deceased, was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It is further submitted
that proper future prospects have not been awarded and the amounts under
conventional heads are inadequate. Therefore, enhancement of compensation
is prayed for.
7. Learned counsel for both the parties opposed each other's submissions.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
Claims Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
4 MA-2498-2020
9. First of all discussing MA No. 2154/2020, it is undisputed that the
offending tractor was purchased on 21.02.2018 and the accident occurred on
29.03.2018. It is also undisputed that on the date of accident, the vehicle was
not registered with the Registering Authority and was subsequently
registered on 06.04.2018.
10. Counsel for appellants submitted that appellant was not owner of
offending vehicle on the date of accident and he submitted that according to
Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act , the person in whose name a motor
vehicle stands registered (i.e. whose name is reflected in the record of
Registering Authority) would be treated as "owner" of vehicle. He relied
upon Naveen Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar and others, (2018) 3 SCC 1 and
Aaditya Khare Vs Jamuna Prasad Kahar and others, 2006 (III) MPWN 79.
11 In the present case, the situation is different, as at the time of the
accident, the offending vehicle was not registered in the RTO office. From
the perusal of the evidence of Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi, Manager of
Kisan Tractor Agency, Vidisha, recorded before the Tribunal, it is clear that
on 21.02.2018, an Eicher tractor was sold to Sachin Bhadoriya and Bill No.
66 was issued in his favour. The tractor was financed through Tata Capital
Finance Company Ltd. The bill was issued on the basis of identity
documents such as Aadhaar Card and other documents in favour of Sachin
Bhadoriya.
12. Therefore, it is clear that on 21.02.2018, Sachin Bhadoriya purchased
the tractor and was the real owner of the offending vehicle. It was his duty to
ensure that the vehicle was registered before being driven on a public road.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
5 MA-2498-2020
However, he breached the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the
vehicle to be driven on a public road without registration.
13. As per Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of of
motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any
public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered
in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration
of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle
carries a registration mark displaced in the prescribed manner.
14. Since the vehicle was being driven without registration, it not only
constitutes an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also
amounts to a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy.
15. Thus, it is evident that the owner of the offending vehicle, Sachin
Bhadoriya, failed to comply with the statutory requirement of registration
and permitted the vehicle to be driven on a public road without registration,
which clearly amounts to a breach of policy conditions.
16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that there was breach of policy
conditions and has correctly directed the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver.
17. No interference is warranted in the findings recorded by the Claims
Tribunal.
18. Accordingly, MA No.2154/2020 stands dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
6 MA-2498-2020
19 . In respect of MA No. 2498/2020 for enhancement is concerned, it is
found that the claimants have utterly failed to adduce any substantial
evidence in regard to income of the deceased. Hence, this Court finds it
appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as an unskilled person
in view of the law laid down in the cases of Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar ,
ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways , 2008 ACJ 2182; and
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi , (2008) 3 ACC 134 in which it is
held that when documentary proof of income is lacking, income is to be
assessed as per the minimum wages applicable. Therefore, in considered
opinion of this Court, the just and proper amount of the income of the
deceased as an unskilled person as per Minimum Wages Act in the present
case is Rs.7125/- per month.
20. As regard to 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. As per Pranay
Sethi (supra), future prospects @ 40% has rightly been assessed by the Claims
Tribunal. Further, 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 assessed by the Claims Tribunal. Claimants are also entitled
to get consortium in the light of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case
of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and others reported in 2020
ACJ 2131.
21. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
7 MA-2498-2020
compensation under the following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.7125 x 12=85,500/- p.a.
Future Prospects@ 40% Rs. 34,200/-
After deducting Dependency 1/4 Rs.89,775/-
Multiplier 17 Rs.15,26,175/-
Other Heads:-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 5 =2,00,000/-
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Compensation = Rs.17,56,175/-
22. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the present
case comes to Rs.17,56,175/- as against the sum of Rs.13,55,200/- awarded by
the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,00,975/- over and above the
amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
23. In the result, miscellaneous appeal No. 2498/2020 is partly
allowed. The impugned award is modified, and the compensation is
enhanced by a sum of Rs.4,00,975/-. The aforesaid enhanced amount shall
carry interest as fixed by Claims Tribunal from the date of deposit of Court
fees by the appellants in the present appeal. 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
remain intact.
24 . In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of the appeal,
the appellants shall deposit the differential Court fee (if not already paid) within a
period of one month from today and furnish proof of such payment before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12154
8 MA-2498-2020
Registry. Upon compliance, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this
order.
25. In view of the foregoing, the miscellaneous appeal No. 2498/2020
stands partly allowed and disposed of.
26.Let a copy of this order be kept in other connected matter.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Prachi
