[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nathulal vs Rakesh & Ors. on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1488
1 MA-2063-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2063 of 2008
NATHULAL
Versus
RAKESH & ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Narayan Dave - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Saranjit Singh Chawla - 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
31.03.2008 passed by IV Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore
(M.P.) in Claim Case No.118/2007, whereby the claim petition filed by the
claimant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
dismissed.
2. Draped in brevity the case of the claimant is that on 04.01.2004 at
about 8 P.M. when he was going on scooter bearing registration no.MP-09-
Q-2885 being pillion and driven by his nephew Manoj and when they
reached near AB Road, in front of Shaniwar Darpan Bhawan, suddenly an
unknown car driven rashly and negligently hit the scooter from the back side
due to which the scooter fell down resulting in grievous injuries to the
appellant/claimant on his limbs, chest, head, ribs and tibia fibula of right leg
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1488
2 MA-2063-2008
was fractured. He claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs showing his income
as Rs.3,000/- per month and dismissal of his claim petition has given rise to
this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the very next
date of the accident report was lodged and copy of the FIR is on record as
Ex.P-1. He was taken to Greater Kailash Nursing Home and Eye Hospital for
treatment just after the accident on 04.01.2004 that has been proved by
discharge summary report Ex.P-2 and thereafter he was treated in Anand
Hospital and Research Centre Pvt.Ltd. and the discharge summary is Ex.P-3.
Besides examining himself the appellant has filed relevant documents with
regard to his treatment and expenditure incurred in that. The evidence on
record has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company, but ignoring the
evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has dismissed his claim, which is
not in accordance with law. Therefore, prays for allowing this appeal by
fixing an appropriate amount of compensation as admissible under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of K.R.Jagadish and another Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd
and another 2025 ACJ 1881, judgments of this Court in the case of Manful
and another Vs. Mehmood and others 2003 (4) MPLJ 174 and Sushila
Bhadoriya and others Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
and another 2005 ACJ 831.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company by inviting
attention of this Court towards the impugned award paras 8, 9 and 10
submits that proper findings have been recorded after appreciating the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1488
3 MA-2063-2008
evidence available on record and no illegality has been committed by the
Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, prays for dismissal
of the appeal filed against the award.
5. Heard and considered the rival submissions and perused the
evidence available on record.
6. From perusal of the record it is apparent that just after the
accident, FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged wherein it has been clearly mentioned that
accident took place when he was riding as pillion on Scooter MP-09-Q-2885
driven by his nephew Manoj. The offending vehicle was a Maruti Car which
was driven rashly and negligently, but the number is unknown. The fact of
sustaining injury is supported by MLC report, discharge card Ex.P-2 issued
by Greater Kailash Nursing Home and Eye Hospital where the appellant was
taken for treatment on 04.01.2004. After that discharge card Ex.P-3 issued
from Anand Hospital and Research Centre Pvt.Ltd. has also been filed
wherein fracture of tibia fibula and right side of ribs have been mentioned.
The documents and vouchers showing medical expenses have also been filed
as Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-31. The disability certificate has been filed as Ex.P-32
wherein it has been assessed that appellant suffered functional impairment
about 54%. To prove the disability, Dr.Jawahar Pahuja (PW-3) has been
examined and in his cross examination in para 5, he admitted that at the time
when the disability certificate was given there was union of fractured bones.
7. Looking to the fact that only the appellant has suffered fracture in
the right leg and right side of ribs, in the considered opinion of this Court
maximum disability which can be assessed is not more than 15% with regard
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1488
4 MA-2063-2008
to the performance of total body.
8. In the light of the aforesaid and the evidence available on record,
this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the
claim petition. The appellant was 54 years old as mentioned in discharge
cards Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 which has not been disputed. The accident occurred
in year 2004 and looking to the total evidence available on record, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that a lump
sum amount of Rs.70,000/- will be just and proper compensation in the
present case. The amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the date of its payment.
9. Accordingly, this Misc. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
