[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramila Bai vs Nitin on 29 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2864
1 MA-967-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 967 of 2024
PRAMILA BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
NITIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for respondent no.3.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been filed by the appellants assailing the impugned award dated
20.10.2023 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mandleshwar (M.P.) in Claim Case No.97/2022, whereby an amount of
Rs.17,93,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim
petition has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimants survivors of
the deceased.
2. The facts in brief is that on 17.05.2022 deceased Inder aged about
40 years was going on his motorcycle and when he reached nearby
agricultural field of Narayan Tanwar at Choli road, he was dashed by the
offending car bearing registration no.MP-09-CV-7506 driven rashly and
negligently by driver/respondent no.1 due to which the deceased suffered
grievous injuries and passed away on the spot.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2864
2 MA-967-2024
3. The survivors of the deceased filed claim petition for awarding
just and proper compensation which was opposed by the Insurance Company
and thereafter recording evidence of both the parties, an amount of
Rs.17,93,000/- was awarded.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal
has taken contributory negligence of the deceased as 50% while he was on
the motorcycle and the offending vehicle is a car, therefore, even head on
collision has taken place, contributory negligence should not be taken more
than 25%. On these submission he prays for enhancement of the amount by
reducing the percentage of contributory negligence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits
that the accident took place on the middle of the road and collision was head
on therefore, Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at a
conclusion that the negligence is 50% of the deceased also. He further
submits that since the Claims Tribunal has taken each and every aspect in the
right perspective in the light of the guidelines given in the various judgments
of the Apex Court, therefore needs no interference and no enhancement is
required.
6. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
7. It is true that as per material available on record, the accident took
place on the middle of the road, but looking to the fact that the deceased was
riding on motorcycle and he was dashed by car No.MP-09-CV-7506, there
was greater responsibility on the driver of the car to avoid the accident. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2864
3 MA-967-2024
such a situation it will be appropriate to consider the contributory negligence
of the deceased to be only 25%. Thus, the percentage of the contributory
negligence is reduced from 50% to 25%. From the perusal of the record and
the impugned award it is apparent that other factors for arriving at just and
proper compensation has been rightly taken into consideration, therefore
needs no interference.
8. Thus, out of total compensation i.e. Rs.17,93,000/- deducting 25%
towards contributory negligence the amount would be Rs.13,44,750/-.
Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount of
Rs.4,48,250/- over and above the amount (i.e. Rs.8,96,500/-) which has been
awarded by the Tribunal. The other terms and conditions of the impugned
award shall remain intact.
9. The appeal is valued as Rs.2,50,000/- and for the rest of the
amount, the claimants will pay the requisite Court fees as per prevailing slab
within a period of one month and only thereafter enhanced amount will be
disbursed. The other terms and conditions as mentioned in the award
shall remain intact.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
herein above.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
