Rajendra Singh vs Mohd.Jakir@Raju on 10 March, 2026

1 MA-3172-2006
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. 3051 of 2006
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhir V. Dandwate - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for respondent No.1.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 3052 of 2006
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
MOHAN SINGH DODIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhir V. Dandwate - Advocate for the appellant.

MISC. APPEAL No. 3172 of 2006
RAJENDRA SINGH
Versus
MOHD.JAKIR@RAJU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Jain - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sudhir V. Dandwate - Advocate for the respondent / Insurance
Company.

MISC. APPEAL No. 3789 of 2007
DHAPUBAI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 3/10/2026
8:24:50 PM
2 MA-3172-2006
Versus
RAJU @ MOHD.JAKIR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri G. P. Singh - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Adil Khan - Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Syed Asif Ali
Warsi - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Sudhir V. Dandwate - Advocate for the respondent / Insurance
Company.

ORDER

Having regard similitude to the controversy involved in the present appeals, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. Misc. Appeal Nos.3051/2006; 3052/2006 and 3172/2006 are arising

out of common impugned award dated 27/06/2006 passed in Claim Case No.41/2005 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Mohd. Zakir & Anr.); Claim Case No.32/2005 (Mohan Singh Dodiya Vs. Mohd. Zakir & Anr.); and Claim Case No.41/2005 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Mohd. Zakir & Anr.) respectively by I Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur (M.P.) and Misc. Appeal No.3789/2007 is arising out of impugned award dated 24/08/2007 passed in Claim Case No.21/2006 (Dhapu Bai Vs. Raju @ Mohd. Zakir & Anr.) by I Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur (M.P.).

3. All the aforesaid Misc. Appeals are arising out same accident which took place on 01/07/2004. It is undisputed that Misc. Appeal No.3789/2007 was earlier disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14/09/2001, whereby Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability of paying compensation and amount of compensation was enhanced, but when it was

3 MA-3172-2006 challenged in Review Petition No.364/2011, vide order dated 12/01/2012 the appeal was restored to its original number on the limited point of liability of payment of compensation by the Insurance Company.

4. Misc. Appeal No.3172/2006 is a injury case preferred by the injured - Rajendra Singh, wherein he has suffered injury in a road traffic accident occurred on 01/07/2004; and Misc. Appeal No.3789/2007 is a death case preferred by the claimant / survivor of the deceased Mangu Singh, wherein compensation has been claimed on account of death of Mangu Singh, husband of appellant - Dhapu Bai.

5. Brief facts of the claimants' case are that on 01/07/2004, deceased Mangu singh and injured / appellant Rajendra Singh were travelling in Commander Jeep bearing registration number MP-09-K-0613 and were going from Village Devla Bihar to Nimbodiya. This Jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by its Driver, which turned turtle and the aforesaid deceased and injured along with other persons sustained grievous injuries. In the accident, Mohd. Zakir succumb to the injuries and Rajendra Singh also suffered grievous injuries resulting in disablement. Accident was reported to the concerned Police Station and thereafter, claim petitions as mentioned hereinabove were filed claiming compensation amount.

6. Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for the Insurance Company relying upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others reported in 2008 ACJ 2860 submitted that on the date of accident i.e. on 01/07/2004 driver,

who was the owner of the offending vehicle himself, was not having any

4 MA-3172-2006 valid and effective Driving Licence, though he was having Driving Licence earlier, but it was renewed on 08/07/2004 near about a week after the date of accident, therefore, in such circumstances learned Claims Tribunal must have exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation amount as the Driver knowing fully well that he is not having any Driving Licence has plied his Jeep, which has met with an accident resulting in injuries to various persons, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case no pay and recovery could have been granted. Hence, prays for allowing the appeals preferred by Insurance Company and to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation. In alternate, he prays that at least pay and recover should have been given. He has also opposed the prayer for enhancement of the award amount in Misc. Appeal No.3172/2006 submitting that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation amount after due appreciation of the evidence available on record, which requires no interference.

7. In Misc. Appeal No.3172/2006 in respect of injured / appellant Rajendra Singh, Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel submits that income of the injured has been assessed only at Rs.2,000/- per month, whereas there was ample evidence to the fact that income was much higher then taken into consideration by the learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, he submits that at least the income of Rs.3,000/- per month should have been considered for determining the compensation amount. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon para 4 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court

5 MA-3172-2006 in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 .

8. Shri Jain, learned counsel further submits that since the appellant was only 35 years old on the date of accident, therefore, in the light of para 59.4 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in the head of Future Prospects, 40% should have been added. He further submits that meager amount has been awarded in the head of Pain and Suffering and Attendant & Special Diet, looking to the injuries and hardship suffered by the claimant, therefore, the same are required to be enhanced. On the point of liability of the Insurance Company, learned counsel submits that Insurance Company has rightly been held liable for payment of compensation as the appellant / claimant is a third party. On these contentions, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount and also to dismiss the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Shri G. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant / survivor of the deceased in Misc. Appeal No.3789/2007 has also supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the claimant in Misc. Appeal No.3172/2006 on the point of liability of the Insurance Company.

10. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. As far as point of liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is undisputed that the accident has taken place on 01/07/2004 and on that

6 MA-3172-2006 date driver, who himself is the owner of the offending vehicle, was not having any valid and effective Driving Licence. Even though he was having Driving Licence before the date of accident and the same was expired and after the accident on 08/07/2004 it has been renewed but not retrospectively rather it has been renewed prospectively only from 08/07/2004.

12. Be that as it may, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that claimants in both the appeals i.e. Misc. Appeal Nos.3172/2006 and 3789/2007 are third parties, who have suffered injuries in road traffic accident, therefore, in the aforesaid facts of the case, at the most liability which could have been imposed on the Insurance Company, could have been by way of Principle of Pay and Recover, therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company are found having substance.

13. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, since the third parties are victim, the findings by the learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company is hereby set aside with the replacement and the Principle of Pay and Recover will be made applicable. First the Insurance Company will pay the awarded amount to the claimants and thereafter, the same will be recovered from the driver / owner of the offending vehicle.

14. With the aforesaid, Misc. Appeal Nos.3051/2006 and 3052/2006 are partly allowed and disposed of to the extend as indicated hereinabove.

15. From perusal of the record of Misc. Appeal No.3172/2006, it is

apparent that learned Claims Tribunal has appreciated the findings with regard to the income of the injured and came to the conclusion that no cogent evidence in this regard has been adduced, therefore, Rs.2,000/- per month

7 MA-3172-2006 has been taken as income of the injured person on the date of accident, which in the considered view of this Court in the year 2004 cannot be said to be on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of injured Rajendra Singh to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, which requires no interference.

16. As far as Future Prospects is concerned, looking to the age of the injured i.e. 35 years, 40% amount in the head of Future Prospects should be added in light of para 59.4 of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).

17. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- each in the head of Attendant & Special Diet and Pain and Suffering, which is on lower side, therefore, the same is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- for each head. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the Permanent disability to the extent of 25%, which is based on due appreciation of evidence, therefore, the same requires no interference by this Court.

18. Accordingly, in respect of appellant / claimant Rajendra Singh in Misc. Appeal No.3172/2006, the just and proper compensation comes as under:

Rs.2,000/- pm + Rs.800/- (40% Future Prospects) Permanent = Rs.2,800/- pm x 12 months = Rs.33,600/- x 16 Disability: Multiplier = Rs.5,37,600/- = Rs.1,34,400/- (25% PD) Medical Expenses: Rs.29,402/-

Attendant Rs.10,000/-

Expenses:

                                   Special Diet:     Rs.10,000/-
                                   Pain and






                                                             8                                 MA-3172-2006
                                Sufferings:        Rs.10,000/-
                                Total:             Rs.1,93,802/-
                                MACT Awarded:    Rs.1,36,000/-
                                                 Rs.57,802/-
                                Enhanced Amount:
                                                 (Rounding off to Rs.58,000/-)

Thus, the amount is enhanced and appellant / claimant Rajendra Singh is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.58,000/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

19. Since no point is open for enhancement of compensation amount in Misc. Appeal No.3789/2007 and liability point with regard to Insurance Company as mentioned hereinabove has been decided, the same will cover this appeal also. Accordingly, no further observation by this Court is required in this appeal.

20. In view of the aforesaid, all the appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well as concerned parties, are allowed and disposed of to the extent as indicated herein above. The other terms and conditions of the impugned award(s) including rate of interest shall remain intact.

21. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of all other connected appeals.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

Tej