[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr vs Surendra Dhakad on 30 January, 2026

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

1 MA-938-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 937 of 2016
SHRIRAM GENERAR INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR
Versus
SMT. SIYA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for appellant/Insurance

Company.
Ms. Meena Singhal-Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 938 of 2016
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR
Versus
SURENDRA DHAKAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K. Agarwal- Advocate for appellant/Insurance Company.
Ms. Meena Singhal- Advocate for respondent No.1/claimant.

ORDER

IA No. 1081/2023 in MA No. 937/2016 and IA No. 1082/2023 in MA No. 938/2016 have been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking rejection of the cross-objections on the ground that the claimants had not deposited the requisite court fee till 27.02.2025 and, therefore, the cross- objections were not maintainable.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

2 MA-938-2016

2. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the claimants have deposited the requisite court fee on 27.02.2025. Accordingly, both the interlocutory applications filed by the appellant/Insurance Company have become infructuous and are hereby dismissed.

3. MA No. 937/2016 and MA No. 938/2016 under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 18.06.2016 passed by the Fifth Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 60/2015 and Claim Case No. 175/2015, primarily on the grounds of false implication of the offending vehicle and, alternatively, seeking reduction of the compensation amount.

4. Since both the appeals arise out of a common award and involve identical facts and issues, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

5. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.09.2013, deceased-Ramveer and claimant-Surendra were returning to their village Gastoli after visiting Bahrara Mata Temple. At about 7:00 p.m., when they reached Aam Road, Pahargarh, opposite Gadhipura Road, respondent No. 6, while driving a Matador bearing registration No. MP-06/GA-1577 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with their motorcycle. As a result, Ramveer sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to them during treatment at J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. Claimant-Surendra also sustained grievous injuries and was initially taken to Kailaras Hospital and thereafter referred to Gwalior for

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

3 MA-938-2016 further treatment. Merg No. 475/13 was registered at Police Station Kampoo, which was later transferred to Police Station Kailaras and registered as original Merg No. 37/13. After investigation, Crime No. 335/13 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, and charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Sabalgarh.

6. The claimants thereafter filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company, along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, filed their written statements denying the allegations.

7. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation.

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeals contending that the award is contrary to the facts and material available on record and settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside. It was contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the offending Matador. It was further submitted that although the accident occurred on 13.09.2013, the Merg was registered on 14.09.2013 and the FIR was lodged on 18.10.2013, which shows false implication. It was also argued that claimant Surendra is not a reliable witness and there are contradictions in his testimony. According to the Insurance Company, the Pre-MLC does not mention that the injuries were caused in a road traffic accident, which clearly indicates false involvement of the vehicle.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

4 MA-938-2016

9. In MA No. 937/2016, the claimants filed cross-objection contending that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at a lower side by treating him as an unskilled labourer, whereas he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Enhancement under other heads was also sought.

10. In MA No. 938/2016, claimant Surendra filed cross-objection contending that the Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed permanent disability at 25%, whereas the doctor had certified 40% permanent disability.

11. Learned counsel for both the parties opposed each other's submissions.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

13. The main contention of the Insurance Company in both appeals relates to false implication of the offending vehicle. It was argued that in Pre-MLC Ex.P/35 of claimant-Surendra and Ex.P/150 of deceased Ramveer, it was not mentioned that the injuries were sustained in a road traffic accident. However, this argument has no substance in view of Ex.P/34, which shows that the concerned doctor had informed the police that both injured persons had come for treatment due to an accident. This information was recorded in Police Rojnamcha No. 598 dated 13.09.2013 at 7:35 p.m. Therefore, it is clearly established that the injuries were sustained in an accident on the said date.

14. It is true that the FIR was registered on 18.10.2013 after the Marg enquiry. However, delay in lodging the FIR by itself is not fatal in motor accident claim cases, which are to be decided on the principle of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

5 MA-938-2016 preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt.

15. The contention regarding contradictions in the testimony of claimant Surendra has also been considered. Surendra is an injured eyewitness. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after registration of the FIR. Minor discrepancies do not render his testimony unreliable. His evidence, when read as a whole, inspires confidence.

16. The Insurance Company had obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, yet neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle entered the witness box. The driver was the best person to explain the manner of accident. Adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. Moreover, the police filed charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.

17. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding of the Claims Tribunal holding the driver of the offending vehicle responsible for the accident. Consequently, both appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.

Assessment of compensation in MA No. 937/2016 (cross-objection filed by claimants)

18 The claimants claimed income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- per month but failed to produce any documentary evidence. In view of the judgments in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar , ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways , 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi , (2008) 3 ACC 134 , when documentary proof of income is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

6 MA-938-2016 lacking, income is to be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act. At the time of accident, the minimum wage for an unskilled labourer was Rs. 5,270/- per month.

19. In light of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 , future prospects at the rate of 40% are required to be added. Applying multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma vs. DTC and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, and granting consortium and conventional heads, the compensation is recalculated as under:

Monthly income: Rs. 5,270/-

Annual income: Rs. 63,240/-

Future prospects (40%): Rs. 25,296/-

After deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses: Rs. 66,402/- Multiplier (17): Rs. 11,28,834/-

Loss of consortium: Rs. 1,60,000/-

Loss of estate and funeral expenses: Rs. 30,000/-

Total compensation: Rs. 13,18,834/-

2 0 . Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable

is Rs13,18,834/- as against the sum of Rs.7,06,000/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6,12,834/- over and above the amount already

awarded by the Tribunal.

21. Consequently, cross objection in MA No. 937/2016 is partly allowed, and the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

7 MA-938-2016 compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.6,12,834/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, from the date of deposit of court fee. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The remaining conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain unaltered.

22. In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of the cross objection, the appellants shall deposit the differential Court fee (if not already paid) within a period of one month from today and furnish proof of such payment before the Registry. Upon compliance, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this order.

Assessment of compensation in MA No. 938/2016 (cross-objection filed by claimant Surendra)

23. Counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that Dr. Vinod Gupta, who treated the claimant, assessed permanent disability at 40%. It was argued that the claimant sustained a compound fracture of the tibia and fibula of the right leg and a fracture in the middle part of the left leg. It was further submitted that the right leg bone was implanted and the right leg had become 2 cm shorter; therefore, the permanent disability ought to have been assessed at 40%.

24. However, on perusal of the deposition of Dr. Vinod Gupta, it is evident that the permanent disability assessed at 40% pertains only to the affected limb and not to the whole body. The Claims Tribunal has discussed all relevant aspects in paragraphs 20 and 30 of the award and, after due

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

8 MA-938-2016

consideration, has rightly assessed the functional permanent disability affecting the earning capacity of the claimant at 25%. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court.

25. From perusal of evidence of claimant, it is found that cl aimant was unable to produce any substantial document in regard to his income. However, upon

overall consideration, it is found that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. In view of the judgments in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways , 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi , (2008) 3 ACC 134, when documentary proof of income is lacking, income is to be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act and, therefore, monthly income of claimant is to be assessed as Rs.5,270/- under the unskilled category at the time of alleged accident.

26. As regards loss of income including future prospects, in the light of judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 , the claimant is entitled for loss of income including future prospects of 40% and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , even if age of the claimant is to be taken into account, multiplier of 17 should be applied.

27. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income for three months, Rs. 9,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 4,500/-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

9 MA-938-2016 towards special diet and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the amounts awarded under the aforesaid heads are on the lower side. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the claimant is entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- under these heads.

28. Accordingly, claimant is entitled to get compensation under the following heads:-

                                                          HEAD                            AMOUNT
                                                                                        Rs.5,270 X12=
                                Income
                                                                                        63,240/-
                                Future Prospects@40%                                    Rs.25,296/-
                                Permanent Disability @25%                               Rs. 22,134/-
                                Multiplier 17                                           Rs.3,76,278/-

Other Head (loss of income, diet, attender Pain and Rs.1,20,000/-

suffering, mental agony and travelling)

Total Compensation = Rs.4,96,278/-

29.. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.4,96,278/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of Rs.3,04,461/-. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an additional

sum of Rs.1,91,817/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

30. In the result, this cross objection in respect of MA No. 938/2016 is partly allowed, by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.1,91,817/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal from the date of deposit of court fee. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3960

10 MA-938-2016 certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

31. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of cross objection, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellant-claimant within a period of one month and proof thereof, shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the MA No. 937/2016 and M.A.No.938/2016 stands disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of this order be kept in connected MA No. 938/2016.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi