Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Manisha vs Mukesh Sharma on 20 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561
1 MA-1174-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1174 of 2012
SMT.MANISHA AND OTHERS
Versus
MUKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P.Gupta - Advocate for the claimants.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Shri Rajesh Gupta- Advocate for United India Insurance Company Ltd.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 1184 of 2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SMT.MANISHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K.Agrawal- Advocate for appellant/Reliance General Insurance Company
Ltd.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for claimants.
Shri Rajesh Gupta- Advocate for United India Insurance Company Ltd.
MISC. APPEAL No. 1091 of 2014
AJAY @ CHHOTU
Versus
MUKESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P. Gupta- Advocate for injured/claimant.
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate for United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 27-Jan-26
10:39:28 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561
2 MA-1174-2012
Shri B.K.Agrawal- Advocate for Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
ORDER
Since the aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the common questions of fact and law relating to the same accident. Hence, they areheard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Misc. Appeal No. 1174 of 2012 has been filed by claimants against the Award dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Datia (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 32 of 2011, Misc. Appeal No. 1184 of 2012 has been filed by appellant/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. against the same Award passed by the same Claims Tribunal in same claim case whereas MA No.1091/2014 has been filed by appellant/injured against the award dated 20.08.2014 passed by First Additional MACT, Datia.
3. MA No.1174/2012 and MA No.1091/2014 have been filed on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. MA No.1184/2012 has been filed on the ground that Insurance Company (Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd) seeking exoneration from liability.
4. In brief facts of the case, are that in the intervening night of 04/05.01.2011 at about 4.00-5.00 a.m., Devendra was driving dumper No. MP-07-GA-0287 loaded with dust from Gwalior to Agra. When the dumper reached near Cantt Hotel ahead of village Maniya, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur (Rajasthan), another dumper bearing Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 3 MA-1174-2012 No. MP-07-HB-1658 (hereinafter referred to "offending vehilce") driven by Mukesh Sharma, was moving ahead on the road. It is alleged that Mukesh, while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, first hit a loading pickup parked on the side of the road and thereafter suddenly applied brakes on the road without giving any horn or signal. Due to this sudden braking, the dumper driven by Devendra collided with the offending vehicle from behind. As a result of the collision, the front portion of the dumper driven by Devendra was badly crushed, causing him to sustain fatal injuries and die on the spot. The cleaner Ajay alias Chhotu, who was sitting in the said dumper, sustained injuries in the accident. In connection with the incident, Police Station Maniya registered FIR at Crime No. 07/2011. The dead body of the deceased Devendra was sent for post-mortem examination and the injured Ajay alias Chhotu was referred to the District Hospital, Dholpur, for treatment. During investigation, offending vehicle was seized, the driver Mukesh was arrested, and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. On these grounds, claimants ( in MA No.1174/2012 and MA No.1091/2014) filed separate claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. Non-claimants therein filed their written statements and denied all claim averments. After framing the issues and taking evidence of both the parties, Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and also recorded the finding with regard to 50-50 per cent contributory negligence of both the vehicles.
6. Shri R.P.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for claimants in MA Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 4 MA-1174-2012 No.1174/2012 submitted that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts, evidence on record and the settled principles of law. It is submitted that from the oral and documentary evidence, it is clearly proved that Mukesh, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, first hit a loaded jeep parked on the roadside and thereafter suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which the dumper driven by the deceased Devendra collided with it. Despite such clear evidence, the Claims Tribunal has committed a serious legal error in holding the deceased guilty of 50% contributory negligence, which finding is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Driver Mukesh alone was negligent and solely responsible for the accident. It is further submitted that Mukesh did not enter the witness box nor examined any witness in support of his defence. In spite of this, the Claims Tribunal failed to draw an adverse inference against him and wrongly fastened contributory negligence on the deceased, which amounts to a manifest error of law. Learned counsel also submits that the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding absence of a valid driving licence with Mukesh on the date of accident is erroneous. The evidence of the insurance company's witness is not consistent and Mukesh himself did not lead any evidence. Despite this, the Tribunal wrongly granted the right of recovery to the insurer against owner and driver which finding deserves to be interfered with.
7. So far the contention raised by Shri R.P.Gupta regarding enhancement of compensation is concerned, it is submitted by him that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 5 MA-1174-2012 Rs.4,000/- per month, ignoring the evidence showing income of Rs.6,000/- per month. On the said income, after deducting personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 16, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is inadequate. Hence, the claimants seek setting aside the finding of contributory negligence and enhancement of the compensation awarded.
8. On the other hand, Shri B.K.Agrawal and Shri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for both the Insurance Company opposed the contention of Shri R.P.Gupta and prayed for rejection of MA No.1174/2012.
9. Further, Shri R.P.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for claimant/injured ( in MA No.1091/2014 ) submitted that the impugned award has been passed without proper appreciation of the law and evidence, and the compensation awarded is on the lower side. It is contended that at the time of accident the appellant was a 22-year-old healthy person, doing work of cleaner and had sustained multiple fractures, underwent surgery and prolonged treatment, and suffered physical and mental pain as well as medical expenses. Despite this, the Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.50,750/-, which is inadequate, and the claimant/injured seeks enhancement to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal itself found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 and the deceased Devendra, and the claimant/injured, being a cleaner, did not contribute to the accident. Therefore, deduction of 50% compensation on the ground of contributory negligence of the appellant is Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 6 MA-1174-2012 illegal and liable to be set aside.
10. Per contra, Shri N.S.Tomar and Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for both the Insurance Company opposed the contention of Shri R.P.Gupta and prayed for rejection of MA No.1091/2014 filed by claimant/injured.
11. Shri B.K.Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (in MA No.1184/2012) submitted that the impugned award is contrary to the facts, evidence and settled principle of law. It is contended that despite recording a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Devendra, the Claims Tribunal wrongly fastened liability on the Insurance Company. The claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable to the extent of negligence attributable to the deceased Devendra himself. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying a higher multiplier and awarding excessive compensation, ignoring that compensation is meant to offset actual financial loss and not to confer unjust enrichment. The award is stated to be based on surmises and conjectures, without proper consideration of law and precedents. It is also contended that interest for the delayed period has been wrongly granted. Hence, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned award.
12. In contrast, Shri R.P.Gupta and Shri Rajesh Gupta opposed the contention of Shri Agrawal and prayed for rejection of MA No.1184/2012 filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the entire record of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 7 MA-1174-2012 the Claims Tribunal.
14. Regarding adjudication of MA No.1184/2012 filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.:- Upon a careful examination of the record, it emerges that Mukesh, driver of the offending vehicle neither lodged any FIR against Devendra, driver of vehicle No. MP-07-GA-0287 (insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.) nor dared to appear before the Claims Tribunal to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants. The driver of the offending vehicle is the person who would have complete knowledge as to how and in what manner the alleged accident occurred. His failure to enter the witness box gives rise to an adverse presumption against him.
15. A conjoint reading of Paragraphs 15 and 18 of the impugned award reveals that the Claims Tribunal itself recorded inconsistent findings with regard to negligence. In Paragraph 15, the Claims Tribunal has categorically held that there is no evidence to draw an inference that deceased Devendra was responsible for the alleged accident, nor is there any material to show rash and negligent driving on his part. However, in Paragraph 18, the Claims Tribunal observed that it was the duty of deceased Devendra to maintain distance from the offending vehicle running ahead.
16. On perusal of FIR, it is clear that driver of offending vehicle first hit the pick-up vehicle and suddenly applied brakes without giving any indicator, due to which deceased Devendra, who was driving the vehicle ( No. MP-07-GA-0287), dashed into the offending vehicle.
17. The United India Insurance Company (insurer of the offending vehicle) has not produced any substantial evidence to show negligence on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 8 MA-1174-2012 part of deceased Devendra. The Claims Tribunal assessed contributory negligence of the deceased Devendra only on the basis of assumption and presumption.
18. It is settled principle of law that contributory negligence must be proved by substantial evidence and not on mere assumption or presumption.
19. The contention advanced by Shri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the basis of the spot map prepared also does not merit acceptance. Mere placement of the vehicle as shown in the prepared spot map cannot, by itself, be a determinative factor to conclude contributory negligence on the part of deceased Devendra. In the absence of any independent or substantive evidence demonstrating the fact that deceased Devendra was not maintaining a safe distance or was driving negligently, such an inference cannot legally be drawn.
20. In the matter of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 23 has held as under:-
23. Be that as it may, the next question concluding that the appellant was also neg-ligent and had contributed equally, which finding rests only on the site map, Exh. 2. indicating the spot where the motor cycle was lying after the accident?
We find sub-stance in the criticism of the appellant that the spot where the motor cycle was found lying after the accident cannot be the basis to assume that it was driven in or around that spot at the relevant time. It can be safely inferred that after the accident of this nature in which the appellant suffered severe injuries necessitating amputation of his right leg above knee level, the motor cycle would be pushed forward after the collision and being hit by a high speeding jeep. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has found that the spot noted in the site map, one foot wrong side of the middle of the road, was the spot where the accident actually occurred. However, the finding is that as per the site map, the motor cycle was found lying at that spot. That cannot be the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 9 MA-1174-2012 basis to assume that the appellant was driving the motor cycle on the wrong side of the road at the relevant time. Fur- ther, the respondents did not produce any contra evidence to indicate that the motor cycle was being driven on the wrong sideof the road at the time when the offend-ing vehicle dashed it. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the occurrence of the accident by driving the motor cycle on the wrong side of the road, is manifestly wrong and cannot be sustained. The High Court has not expressed any opinion on this issue, having already answered the issue about the non-
involvement of the offending vehicle in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2 1 . Thus, considering the evidence adduced before the Claims Tribunal, it is clear that the United India Insurance Company Ltd. utterly failed to adduce any substantial evidence to establish that the vehicle No. MP-07-GA-0287 (insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.) was being driven negligently by deceased Devendra at the time of alleged accident. In absence of such evidence, negligence on the part of the deceased Devendra cannot be assumed.
22. In the result, since the argument advanced by learned counsel for United India Insurance Company Ltd. that deceased Devendra (driver of vehicle No. MP-07-GA-0287) was negligent is not proved by any substantial evidence, therefore, this Court holds that there is no legal evidence to sustain the finding of contributory negligence on the part of deceased Devendra. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal holding deceased Devendra to be 50% negligent in the alleged accident is not correct in the eye of law, deserves to be set aside, and is hereby set aside. The driver, owner and United India Insurance Company (insurer of offending vehicle) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to claimants.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 10 MA-1174-2012
23. Consequently, MA No.1184/2012 filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. is disposed of in view of findings recorded above.
24. "Regarding adjudication of MA No.1174/2012 filed by claimants":- So far as enhancement of compensation as sought for by the claimants is concerned, it is found that the claimants failed to adduce any documentary evidence regarding the income of deceased Devendra. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to assess the income on the basis of Minimum Wages Act , as held 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 . Accordingly, the income of deceased is assessed at Rs.4,825/- per month as an unskilled worker.
25. 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 claimants are entitled for loss of income including future prospects. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), future prospects @ 40% has rightly been applied by the Claims Tribunal. Further, 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 deceased Devendra is to be taken into account, Claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15. In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur and Others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131 , claimants are entitled to get compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate.
26. Accordingly, the claimants (in MA No.1174/2012) are entitled to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 11 MA-1174-2012 receive compensation under the following heads:
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.4825 X 12= 57900/- p.a.
After adding Future Prospects@40 % Rs.81060/-
After adding Dependency 2/3 Rs.54040/-
Multiplier 15 Rs.810600/-
Other Heads:-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Compensation = Rs.9,60,600/-
27. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable case comes t o Rs.9,60,600/- as against the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,60,600/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
28. Consequently, MA No.1174/2012 filed by claimants is partly allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.4,60,600/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The remaining conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
29. In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of appeal i.e. MA No.1174/2012, the claimants 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2561 12 MA-1174-2012
30. Regarding adjudication of MA No.1091/2014 filed by injured/claimant-
Ajay : So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the injuries sustained by claimant/injured in the alleged accident, it would be appropriate to enhance to lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/-. Accordingly, MA No.1091/2014 filed by injured/claimant is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. The amount of compensation is enhanced to lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) . Claimant is entitled to receive Rs.75,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. All other findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
31. All the misc.appeals stand disposed of in lieu of the aforesaid discussions.
32. Let a copy of this order be kept in connected misc. appeals.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 27-Jan-26 10:39:28 AM