[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranji Samule & Anr. vs Jagdish Kumar & Anr. on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6375
1 MA-2984-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2984 of 2009
RANJI SAMULE & ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
JAGDISH KUMAR & ANR. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gautam Gupta on behalf of Shri Kishore Kumar Gupta, learned
counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2985 of 2009
RUBY
Versus
JAGDISH KUMAR & ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gautam Gupta on behalf of Shri Kishore Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
ORDER
These two appeals have been preferred against the impugned award
dated 31.07.2009 passed in Claim Case No. 35/2009 (Ranji Samual & Anr.
vs. Jagdish Kumar & Ors.) and Claim Case No. 106/2009 (Rubi vs. Jagdish
& Ors.) whereby an amount of Rs.13,54,000/- has been awarded to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6375
2 MA-2984-2009
claimants in Claim Case No. 35/2009 and an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been
awarded to the injured Rubi in Claim Case No. 106/2009 with the stipulation
that the deceased and injured Rubi have contributed negligence to the tune of
50%.
02. The main contention raised on behalf of the claimants is that on
the date of the accident deceased Sherli W/o Ranji Samual, claimant in M.A.
No. 2984/2009 and appellant/injured Rubi in M.A. No. 2985/2009 were only
occupants in the car No. MP-09-HD-2649 which was driven by Ranji
Samuel, husband of deceased Sherli. Learned counsel submits that neither
the injured nor the deceased were driving the vehicle, therefore, at no point
of time they could have been saddled with contributory negligence. Even
otherwise there is no cross FIR against the claimant Ranji Samuel, who was
driven the car at the time of incident and even otherwise no evidence in
rebuttal has been adduced by insurance company that claimant Rubi and
deceased Sherli were responsible for the accident up to an extent. On these
contentions, learned counsel prays for setting aside the finding with regard to
the contributory negligence given in the award against claimant Rubi and
deceased Sherli by allowing these appeals.
03. Per contra learned counsel for the insurance company submits that
Ranji Samuel, who is beneficiary in M.A. No. 2984/2009 was driving the car
which met with an accident and it was his own rash and negligent driving
which led to the accident as he collided with the truck from rear side and the
truck was stationary at the time of the incident, therefore, learned counsel
submits that finding with regard to the contributory negligence which has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6375
3 MA-2984-2009
resulted in reduction of the award amount is proper and cannot be found fault
with. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.
0 4 . Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
0 5 . It is not in dispute that appellant/injured Rubi and Sherli at the
time of incident were occupying car number as mentioned herein above
which was driven by Ranji Samule. It is true that he is one of the survivors of
the deceased Sherli and certainly will get the compensation amount, but this
in itself cannot be a ground to fasten the liability of contributory negligence
on the occupiers of the car as in the instant case deceased Sherli and Rubi
was in the car, therefore, this Court is not impressed by the arguments
advanced on behalf of the insurance company that if the finding of
contributory negligence is set aside then certainly Ranji Samule will be
benefited by his own wrong. Even otherwise there is no evidence placed on
record by insurance company that the deceased and claimant Rubi were
anyhow and to any extent responsible for the accident. Record of the
criminal case which has been placed on record in the Claim Case also do not
suggest that there was any negligence on the part of the claimant Rubi and
deceased Sherli. No cross FIR was filed against anyone of them. Hence, on
mere apprehension that Ranji Samuel will be benefited by his own wrong,
therefore, the liability of contributory negligence as fastened on the deceased
and Rubi is in accordance with the law, cannot found stamp of approval of
this Court. Accordingly, the arguments advanced on behalf of insurance
company are hereby repelled and discarded.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6375
4 MA-2984-2009
06. In view of the above, learned Claims Tribunal has committed an
error in fastening the liability of contributory negligence on the injured Rubi
and deceased Sherli, therefore, the aforesaid finding of contributory
negligence on the part of the claimant Rubi and deceased Sherli is hereby set
aside. The amount of award which has been assessed by the learned Claims
Tribunal is not in dispute, therefore, it will remain intact and whole of the
amount which has been assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal will be paid
to the claimant Rubi and survivors of the deceased Sherli as per terms and
conditions in the impugned award.
0 7 . Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and disposed off to the
extent herein above indicated.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
