[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anshul Sharma vs Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya And 2 Ors. on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3554
1 MA-85-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 85 of 2013
ANSHUL SHARMA
Versus
DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri J.M. Poonegar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Mehra - Advocate for respondent no.3.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been filed by the appellant assailing the impugned award dated
04.09.2012 passed by IX Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore (M.P.) in
Claim Case No.55/2012, whereby an amount of Rs.42,700/- with interest
@6% has been awarded with stipulation that the amount will be paid by
respondents no.1 and 2 owner and driver and Insurance Company has been
exonerated on the ground that the offending vehicle was not having valid
permit on the date of accident.
2. As per prosecution case, on 07.11.2009 master Anshul aged about
13 years was riding on bicycle and going towards his maternal uncle's house
and when he reached nearby Jairampur Pulia, the offending vehicle school
bus bearing registration no.MP-09-S-6504 driven rashly and negligently
dashed the cycle resulting in fall of the victim/appellant on the ground with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3554
2 MA-85-2013
bicycle and suffered grievous injuries. The incident was report to the
concerned police station and claim petition was filed for compensating the
loss which has occurred due to the accident and consequential disablement.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case of breach of
permit for third party pay and recover is directed as settled principle for
which he has relied upon para 12 of the judgment dated 10.11.2025 of the
Apex Court in the case of Akula Narayana Vs. The Oriental lnsurance
Company Limited and another Civil Appeal No.013509/2025 and submits
that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the aforesaid and
exonerated the Insurance Company which is not permissible in case of third
party. He further submits that appellant was a boy aged about 13 years and
suffered 12% disablement which is proved by the disability certificate Ex.P-
14 given by Dr.Kush Bandi (AW-3). Looking to the aforesaid atleast
Rs.3,000/- notional income should have been taken as per disablement. The
loss of income should be applied by applying the multiplier of 15 and only a
meagre amount of Rs.42,700/- has been awarded therefore, it be enhanced.
In the head of future prospects, pain and suffering, special died and loss of
amenities just and proper amount should also been awarded. On these
submissions, prays for enhancing the amount of compensation by allowing
this appeal.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits
that learned Claims Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence available
on record and therefore, the impugned award needs no interference. The
amount awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3554
3 MA-85-2013
and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard and considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that appellant was third party as far as the
offending vehicle was concerned and contract of insurance is not disputed,
therefore, the learned Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company
to pay the award amount to the victim and then it be recovered from the
owner and driver. The same view has been proposed by the Apex Court in
the case of Akula Narayana (Supra). Para 12 of the judgment is reproduced
here under:-
"12. Where the contract of insurance is not disputed, even on
breach of insurance conditions, this Court had allowed recovery of
compensation from the insurer by giving right to the insurer to
recover the same from the vehicle owner. The pay and recover
principle has been consistently followed even though it was
doubted in a reference which remained unanswered. Taking a
conspectus of various pronouncements, this Court recently in
Rama Bai v. Amit Minerals 2025 SCC Online SC 2067 again
applied the said principle and while allowing the appeal of the
claimant directed that the insurance company shall satisfy the
award and may recover from the insured. Following the aforesaid
decisions, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal by directing
that the first respondent (i.e., the insurer) shall satisfy the award,
though, however, it can recover the amount so paid from the
insured (i.e., owner of the vehicle)."
7. Accordingly, the finding of exoneration of Insurance Company is
hereby set aside and it is directed that principle of pay and recover will be
applicable. Insurance Company will pay the awarded amount fixed by this
Court first to the appellant and then recover it from the owner and driver. The
age of the victim 13 years is not in dispute. Even though as per disablement
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3554
4 MA-85-2013
certificate Ex.P-14 the disability has been assessed to the extent of 12%, but
looking to the injuries and age of the victim who was a child of growing age,
disability of whole body cannot be assessed more than 5%. Hence, it is
assessed that victim suffered disablement to the extent of 5% of the whole
body. In the head of medical expenses Rs.5,000/- has already been awarded
which is sufficient in the absence of bills. In the head of pain and suffering
Rs.20,000/-, special diet Rs.10,000/- and loss of amenities of life Rs.10,000/-
will further be added.
8. Considering the evidence that came on record, in the considered
opinion of this Court the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is
on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced as under:-
Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-(40% FP)=Rs.4,200/- x 12=
Permanent
Rs.50,400/- x 15 (multiplier) =Rs.7,56,000/- x 5%
disability
(PD)=Rs.37,800/-
Pain and
Rs.20,000/-
suffering
Special diet Rs.10,000/-
Loss of
amenities of Rs.10,000/-
life
Total
Rs.77,800/-
Amount
MACT
Rs.42,700/-
Award
Enhanced
Rs.35,100/-
Amount
9. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant
case is Rs.77,800/- as against the award of the Tribunal of Rs.42,700/-
. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an enhanced amount of
Rs.35,100/-over and above the amount which has been awarded by the
Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3554
5 MA-85-2013
10. The claimant/appellant will pay the requisite Court fees as per
prevailing slab within a period of one month and only thereafter enhanced
amount will be disbursed. It is made clear, in case the court fees is not paid
within the stipulated period, the appellant will not be entitled for claiming
interest on the enhanced amount beyond 30 days' period. The other terms and
conditions as mentioned in the award shall remain intact.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
herein above.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
