[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manager H.D.F.C.Ergo General ... vs Smt.Archana Gurjar And 5 Ors. on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
1 MA-778-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 778 of 2012
MANAGER H.D.F.C.ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE
Versus
SMT.ARCHANA GURJAR AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the appellant-insurnace
company.
Shri RN Dave and Shri Hemant Vaishav - Advocate for the
respondents.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 788 of 2012
SMT. ARCHNA BEVA AND 2 ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
SHAKIR AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.N. Dave and Shri Hemant Vaishnav - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the respondent No. 3.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the impugned
award dated 08.02.2012 passed in Claim Case No. 76/2011 whereby an
award of Rs.27,41,945/- with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
2 MA-778-2012
date of filing of claim petition dated 05.10.2010 has been awarded to the
claimants-surviors of the deceased Mukesh, who passed away in a road
traffic accident occurred on 07.07.2010 when the deceased was
travelling on his motorcycle and same was dashed by offending vehicle
No. M.P. 09 5535 driven by Shakir Ali/respondent No. 1 in M.A. No.
778/2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the aforesaid date 07.07.2010
deceased Mukesh Kumar was hit by aforesaid truck No. MP 09 5535 and
succumbed to the injuries and passed away on the spot. FIR was lodged
at Police Station - Station Road, Ratlam where an FIR was registered
under Sections 279, 304A of IPC which gives rise to Criminal Case No.
2097/2010. For the untimely accidental death of the deceased claim
petition was preferred by the survivors, those are - minor son (appellant
No. 4), daughter (appellant No.3), wife (appellant No. 1) and father
Harilalal (appellant No. 2).
3. Since both the appeals have arisen from the impugned award,
therefore, they have been analogously heard and are being disposed off
by this common order.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance
company has vehemently assailed the impugned award on the ground
that documents cover note (Ex.P/20) and policy (Ex.P/21) filed by
appellants are forged. He submits that he has filed these documents as
Annexure D/4 & D/5 which cover the period from 16.07.2010 to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
3 MA-778-2012
15.07.2011. The documents Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/21 filed by
appellants/claimants were not recovered with the truck and have been
seized only on 18.08.2010 after near about one month when the incident
took place. He further submits that there was no fitness of the offending
vehicle on the date of incident and on these grounds raised contentions
that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in
right perspective and fastening the liability of payment of compensation
on insurance company. On the point of enhancement, he further submits
that amount of award is just and proper, therefore, needs no
enhancement. On these submissions, he prays for allowing the appeal
filed on behalf of insurance company and prays for dismissal of the
appeal filed on behalf of the claimants.
4.1 To buttress his point, learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company has relied upon an order passed by this Court in para
- 8 of M.A. No. 4218/2022 (The New India Assurance Ltd. vs.
Bhagwanlal & Ors.) decided on 06.03.2024, M.A. No. 1849/2019
(United India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rahul) decided on 31.10.2019, in
para 17 to 21 of the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of Keralal
High Court in the case of Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. (MACD 2019(2) (Ker.) 529, in para-13 of S.M. Sharmila vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2012 ACJ 693.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that
liability has been rightly fastened on the insurance company appreciating
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
4 MA-778-2012
the evidence available on record and, therefore, contentions made by
counsel for the insurance company in this regard are of no consequence.
For this he has invited the attention of this Court towards documents
Ex.D/4 & D/5 which are policy and cover note produced by the
insurance company and the same documents (cover notes and policy)
filed on behalf of the claimant/appellants are Ex.P/20 & P/21. Learned
counsel invited the attention of this Court towards these documents and
evidence of DW/1 Sajjan Singh and DW/2 Ramrajya Vishwakarma. To
buttress his point, he has read out testimony of DW-2 in toto to the effect
that insurance company could not prove that Ex.P/20 and P/21, cover
note and policy of the offending vehicle are forged one. These
documents cover the period from 06.07.2010 to 05.07.2011 in between
date of incident on 07.07.2010 has taken place. He further submits that
objection with regard to fitness and permit has been rightly dealt with by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in para-29 of the impugned
award and, therefore, the liability to pay awarded amount has been
fastened on the insurance company which cannot be found fault with.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants further submits that
the learned trial Court has failed to compute the income of the deceased
in right prospective. Multiplier 15 has been applied which should be 16
looking to the age of the deceased which was 35 years on the date of the
accident. He submits that income could have been assessed Rs.40,955/-
per month and for this, he has invited attention of this Court towards
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
5 MA-778-2012
salary slip of the deceased i.e. Ex.P/17 & P/18. He further submits that
looking to 4 dependents, deduction in personal expenses should have
been 1/4th at the place of 1/3rd which has been applied in para 10 of the
impugned award. He further submits that no amount has been given in
head of future prospects which should have been 50% of the income
calculated and along with this in head of consortium an amount of
Rs.40,000/- each to all the claimants that comes to Rs.1,60,000/- should
have been given. On these points, he prays for enhancement of the award
and dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurance company.
6.1 To buttress his points, learned counsel for the
claimants/appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma & ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
2009 ACJ 1298, para 13 & 16 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maya
Devi & Ors. 2025, ACJ 406, , para 9 of Retu & Ors. vs. Dharamveer &
Ors. 2012 ACJ 579, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maya Devi & Ors.
2025 ACJ 406, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. White Rose & Ors. 2002
ACJ 1061, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. 2016
ACJ 851, Raj Kumar Agrawal alias Rajju vs. Sadhna (Ku.) & Ors.
2010(1) M.P.L.J.
7. Heard and considered the submissions raised by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From perusal of the documents Ex.D/5 & P/20 - cover notes
and policy - Ex.P/21 & D/4, it is apparent that cover note filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
6 MA-778-2012
insurance company (Ex.D/5) does not bear signature of any authorised
signatory in between letters A to A marked in red ink. This cover note
covers the period from 16.07.2010 to 15.07.2011 whereas the insurance
policy filed by the claimants i.e. P/20 and Ex.P/21 Policy and Cover note
filed on behalf of the claimants bears signature of Ankur Bharohi which
has been proved by evidence that they are of an employee of insurance
company and Ex.P/20 insurance policy. Cover note filed on behalf of
claimants bears signature of authorized signatory.
9. From perusal of the statement of DW-2 Ramraje Vishwakarma,
it is amply clear that Ex.P/20 & 21 filed on behalf of the claimants are
documents which by no stretch of imagination and on the basis of
evidence can be said to be forged one. Evidence of this witness has been
dealt with by the learned Claims Tribunal in para 21 to 25 and the
learned Claims Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that it has been
proved that the offending truck was insured for the period from
07.07.2010 to 06.07.2011 by cover note Ex.P/21 and policy Ex.P/20.
This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid
finding. It is also proved by testimony of DW/1 Sajjan Singh that
offending truck was having permit No. 0160/06 from 25.02.2006 to
24.02.2011. He has admitted in cross-examination of para-3 that this
permit was issued to the offending truck because it was having fitness
certificate, therefore, contention raised in this regard is also not tenable
and learned Claims Tribunal in para-21 has recorded a finding in this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
7 MA-778-2012
regard which is just and proper and there is no ground to interfere with
the aforesaid finding. Thus, it is quite clear that appeal filed on behalf of
insurance company has no substance.
10. As far as appeal by the appellants/claimants with regard to the
enhancement of the claim amount is concerned, contention of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants is not sustainable as salary
slip (Ex.P/19) which has been relied upon by the learned Claims
Tribunal clearly shows that basic pay of the deceased on the date of the
accident was Rs.19,630/- and as per Circular (Ex.P/22), he was entitled
for 45% dearness allowance on this amount and thus, total amount of
income of the deceased comes to Rs.28,463/-. Since the other salary slips
(Ex.P/17 & P/18) which have been referred by the claimants are having
description of some arrears, therefore, they have rightly not been taken
into consideration for ascertaining the income of the deceased. Thus,
income of the deceased is Rs.28,463/- per month and Rs.3,41,556/- is
properly assessed which needs no interference. The date of birth of the
deceased was 16.10.1974 and on the date of the accident, the age of the
deceased was 35 years below 36 years, therefore, the learned Claims
Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 16 which
should be applicable in the light of judgment delivered in para-42 of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
11. From perusal of the claim petition and appeal memo, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
8 MA-778-2012
apparent that four persons have been shown and proved as dependents of
the deceased, therefore, as per para 30 of judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt)
(supra) approved in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680, deduction of 1/4th will be taken on personal expenses
therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has failed to deduct 1/3rd which is
now sustainable. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), in para 59.3 where
victim is in permanent job and below 40 years of age, an addition of
50% will be given in the head of future prospects. In the head of loss of
consortium, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- will be given to each of the
claimants i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- is also awarded and in the head of funeral
expenses, and in the head of loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- in each head is to
be added.
12. In the light of the aforesaid the just and proper amount of
compensation will be computed as under:-
Rs.28,463/- pm x 12 months = Rs.3,41,556/- + 50% Future
Loss of
Prospects = Rs.5,12,334/- (-) 1/4 towards personal expenses =
Dependency
Rs.3,84,251/- x multiplier of 16 = Rs.61,48,016/-
Loss of
Rs.1,60,000/-(40,000 x 4 dependents)
Consortium
Funeral
expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of
Rs.15,000/-
Estate
Total Rs.63,38,016/-
MACT
Rs.27,41,945/-
awarded
Enhanced
Rs.35,96,071/-
amount
13. Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellants/claimants are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1672
9 MA-778-2012
entitled to an additional amount of Rs.35,96,071/- over and above the
amount which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
14. In MA No. 788/2012, the appellants have paid court fees of
Rs.30,000/- only on the valuation of appeal of Rs.12,00,000/-, therefore,
it is directed that the remaining amount of court fees on enhanced
compensation amount be paid by the appellants within a period of 30
days from today as per the prevailing rate of court fees.
15. With the aforesaid, appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance
Company bearing M.A. No. 778/2012 is hereby dismissed and the appeal
filed by the appellants/claimants bearing M.A. No. 788/2012 is allowed
and disposed off to the extent herein-above indicated. The other terms
and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
