Abdul Latif And Anr. vs Ishaq And 3 Ors. on 11 February, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4404

1 MA-2195-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2195 of 2011
ISHAK BEGH AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
SULTAN ANSARI AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Kumar Rawal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2139 of 2011
ABDUL LATIF AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
ISHAQ AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Deepak Kumar Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

ORDER

Having regard to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present appeals and further looking to the fact that these appeals have arisen from the common award dated 20.05.2011 in Claim Case No. 198/2009,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4404

2 MA-2195-2011 heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common order.

0 2 . Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2195/2011 has been preferred by survivors/claimants for enhancement of the award amount and Misc. Appeal No. 2139/2011 has been preferred by owner and driver for setting aside the impugned award by directing the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the compensation amount.

0 3 . Claimants' case in nutshell is that deceased Naushad Beg on the fateful day on 16.04.2009 was travelling on Truck No. M.P. 09 KB-6192 whereon he was working as Cleaner. Truck was driven rashly and negligently, therefore, it fell in the river by breaking relying of the bridge. In this accident, deceased along with other persons suffered injuries and he passed away during the treatment. Incident was reported to the police station

under Crime No. 72/2009 under Sections 279, 337 of IPC registered at Police Station Karanwas, District-Rajgarh.

0 4 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of owner submits that learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that it has not been proved that deceased Naushad was working as a Cleaner on the aforesaid Truck. This was infringement of Insurance policy and hence Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation amount and liability to pay the compensation amount has been fastened on non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2/owner and driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel by inviting attention of this Court towards evidence available on record submits that it is amply proved by way of evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants that deceased Naushad was working as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4404

3 MA-2195-2011 Cleaner on the Truck No. M.P. 09 KB-6192. Policy Ex.D/1 which has been relied upon by the Insurance Company also reveals that five employees were covered by the policy including two other employees, therefore, Insurance Company has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective by fastening liability on the owner and driver by exonerating the Insurance Company, hence prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the direction of exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of the awarded amount. To buttress his points, learned counsel has placed reliance on para - 7 of Somti Bai & Ors. vs. Mishri Lal & Ors. 1995 ACJ 1233, paras 12 & 13 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chitrakela Bai & Ors., 1988 ACJ 731, paras 8 & 10 of Abdul Sattar Qureshi & Anr. vs. Mehboob & Ors., 1987 ACJ 448 , para-9 of Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat vs. Shevanta Dattaram & Anr. 1997 ACJ 1014 , para-13 of United India Ins. Co. vs. Muni Anjinappa & Ors. 2018 ACJ 2081 , paras 5 & 6 of Pratap Singh vs. National Insurance Co. & Ors. 1908 ACJ 309 and paras 4 & 5 of Baldev Singh & Anr. vs. Vidya Devi & Anr. 1993 ACJ 938.

0 5 . Learned counsel for the survivors of the deceased Naushad submits that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed. As per Circular issued under Minimum Wages Act on the relevant day i.e. 16.04.2009, income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.3520/- even treating the deceased as unskilled labourer. Looking to the age of the deceased 22 years, 40% of the income should have been added in the head of future prospects. Two survivors should have been awarded Rs.80,000/- in

the head of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each), in funeral expenses and loss of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4404

4 MA-2195-2011 estate, Rs.30,000/- should be awarded. On these contentions, learned counsel prays for enhancement.

0 6 . Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently opposed both the appeals on the ground that in the W.S. filed by the owner and driver it has been specifically denied that deceased was working as Cleaner on the Truck. He was gratuitous passenger in the Truck (goods vehicle) and no premium was paid for that, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel also opposes the prayer for enhancement of the award amount as it is based on appreciation of evidence available on record, hence prays for dismissal of both the appeals. To buttress his point, learned counsel placed reliance on para 13 & 14 of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 476, para 14 of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati & Ors. 2007 ACJ 1043 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rattani & Ors. 2009 ACJ 925.

Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

07. From perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that Naushad was travelling in the vehicle Truck No. M.P. 09 KB-6192 which met with an accident on the fateful day 16.04.2009 and succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment. From perusal of W.S. filed on behalf of the owner and driver, it is clear that those pleadings in Claim Petition that deceased was working as Cleaner on the aforesaid Truck have been denied, but the fact remains that in the evidence available on record which has been adduced by

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4404

5 MA-2195-2011 the claimants, it has been specifically said that the deceased was working as Cleaner in the Truck. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that Claimants' case has been that the deceased was travelling as Cleaner in the Truck and for that they have adduced the evidence which cannot be discarded on its plain reading. Even if the owner to avoid its liability has pleaded that the deceased was not in his employment even then these pleadings cannot take place of proof as no reliable evidence is there on record to rebut the fact that the deceased Naushad was not in employment of the owner, hence arguments advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company in this regard cannot be accepted.

0 8 . Insurance policy (Ex.D/1) which has been relied upon by the Insurance Company and is placed on record reveals that premium for seven employees was taken by the Insurance Company, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation as deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger. Judgments cited by the respondent/Insurance Company are not applicable in the factual matrix when it is not proved that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger. Accordingly, the direction contained in para-21 of the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and liability of payment of compensation is fastened on the Insurance Company.

09. As far as the case of enhancement of the award amount in appeal by survivors of the deceased is concerned, Insurance Company has taken income of the deceased Rs.3000/- per month on guess work basis. Claimants have not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4404

6 MA-2195-2011 as Rs.4500/- per month, therefore, Circular issued under Minimum Wages Act should have been resorted to and as per Circular prevalent on the date of the accident, income of the unskilled labourer was given as Rs.3520/- per month if this income is to be taken for assessing just and proper compensation. Looking to the age in between 21 to 25 years, the multiplier of 18 will be applicable and as per directions contained in para 59.4 of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income will be added in the head of future prospects. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 1/2 of the income will be deducted in the head of personal expenses.

10. Accordingly, the just and proper compensation comes as under:

Rs.3520/- per month + Rs.1408/- (40% Future Loss of Prospects) = Rs.4928/- (-) Rs.2464/- (Deducted Dependency: 1/2nd Personal Expenses) = Rs.2,464/- x 12 = Rs.29,568/- x 18 (Multiplier) =Rs.5,32,224/- Loss of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Consortium:

Loss of Estate: Rs.15,000/-

Funeral Expenses: Rs.15,000/-

                                 Total:            Rs.6,42,224/-
                                 MACT Award:       (-)Rs.1,83,000/-

Award reduced by: Rs.4,59,224/- (Rs.4,59,300/- round up) 1 1 . Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellants / claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.4,59,300/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

12. Appellants/claimants are required to pay requisite court fees as per

the prevailing slab on the enhanced amount by adjusting the earlier court fee, if already paid, within a period of 30 days, thereafter, the same will be disbursed to the appellants/claimants. It is made clear, in case the court fees

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4404

7 MA-2195-2011

is not paid within the stipulated period, the appellants/claimants will not be entitled for claiming interest on the enhanced amount beyond 30 days' period till filing of requisite court fee.

13. Resultantly, both these appeals filed by the appellants (owner and driver) and appellants/claimants are hereby allowed. Accordingly, the direction contained in para-21 of the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and liability for payment of compensation is fastened on the Insurance Company. The other terms and conditions including interest part of the impugned award shall remain intact.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

soumya