Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahila Ramkali vs Harish Singh Tomar, on 17 December, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33438
1 MA-1057-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 17th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1057 of 2007
MAHILA RAMKALI AND OTHERS
Versus
HARISH SINGH TOMAR, AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajit Kumar Sudele - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.3.
Ms. Aditi Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No.110/2002 vide award dated 20.07.2004, on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate.
2. The respondent-Insurance Company has filed cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the fastening of liability upon it.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2002 at about 4:00 PM, the deceased Rambhajan was travelling in a tractor bearing Registration No. MP-06-J-5541 along with sacks filled with grains and seeds from Ambah Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 22-Dec-25 04:00:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33438 2 MA-1057-2007 to his village Sonpalkapura, Tehsil Porsa. When the tractor-trolley reached near USAID Ghat Road close to the cold storage, the vehicle, which was being rashly and negligently driven by the respondent No.2, overturned. As a result of the said accident, the deceased Rambhajan, who was sitting over the sacks placed in the trolley/mudguard, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The incident was reported to the police, an FIR was registered against respondent No.2, and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.
4. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The respondents filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- (as mentioned in the award) payable from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation on the lower side and failed to grant just and reasonable compensation under various heads. It is contended that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards future prospects and also did not grant adequate compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses. It is further submitted that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and the awarded amount does not reflect just Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 22-Dec-25 04:00:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33438 3 MA-1057-2007 compensation as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, prayer has been made for enhancement of the compensation to a reasonable extent.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC contending that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly fastened liability upon the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on the tractor-trolley, whereas the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes in breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. No premium was paid for carrying passengers or labourers. The Tribunal itself has recorded a categorical finding in paragraph 66 of the award that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the policy conditions. Despite such finding, the Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the owner and driver. It is contended that in cases of fundamental breach of policy conditions, the Tribunal has no authority to pass a "pay and recover" direction. Therefore, the Insurance Company seeks complete exoneration from liability and prays for allowing the cross-objections and dismissal of the appeal for enhancement.
8. Vide order dated 18.07.2025, the record was called for from the Claims Tribunal; however, it was reported that the record had been destroyed. With the consent of both parties, the case has been decided on the basis of the impugned award.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 22-Dec-25 04:00:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33438 4 MA-1057-2007
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, it is evident from paragraph 61 of the award that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor-trolley. The Tribunal has categorically held that the offending tractor was insured for agricultural purposes only and was being used for commercial purposes at the time of the accident. It is also found that no premium was paid for carrying any passenger or labourer. Thus, it stands conclusively proved that the owner and driver committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
11. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Bakaridan & Others, 2017 ACJ 2524, wherein it is held that if death of a passenger travelling on the mudguard of Tractor when Tractor met with accident due to its rash and negligent driving, then Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability as seating capacity of Tractor is only one person i.e. driver and no premium is paid for carrying passengers by the side of driver or in trolley and thus, only the owner will be responsible for the payment of compensation and not the Insurance Company.
12. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani, AIR 2003 SC 607, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since passenger is not allowed on tractor, Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability and the claimants will be entitled to recover compensation only Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 22-Dec-25 04:00:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33438 5 MA-1057-2007 from the owner and driver of the tractor who shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
13. In view of the settled legal position, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award with liberty of recovery. Accordingly, the cross- objections deserve to be allowed.
Determination of Just Compensation:-
14. So far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, this Court finds it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as an unskilled person in view of the law laid down in the cases of 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 in which it is held that when documentary proof of income is lacking, income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the just and proper amount of the income of the deceased as per Minimum Wages Act in the present case is Rs.2,036/- per month of an unskilled person.
15. 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 of 40% and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case o f Sarla Verma and ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 22-Dec-25 04:00:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33438 6 MA-1057-2007 reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, even if age of the deceased is to be taken into account, multiplier of 15 should be applied and 1/4 personal expenses of deceased should be deducted.
16. Accordingly, appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation under the following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Rs.2036 X 12= 24432
Income
per annum
After adding Future
Rs.34,205/-
Prospects@40%
After adding Dependency 3/4 Rs. 25,654/-
Multiplier 15
Loss of Income Rs.25,654 X 15=3,84,810
Other Heads:-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 X 5 = 2,00,000
Loss of Estate and funeral
Rs.30,000/-
expenses
Total Compensation = Rs. 6,14,810/-
17. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.6,14,810/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of Rs.1,79,500/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,35,310/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
18. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.4,35,310/-. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 22-Dec-25 04:00:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33438 7 MA-1057-2007 enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is made clear that appellants shall not get interest from 21.11.2007 to. 08.07.2015 The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The cross-objections filed by the respondent-Insurance Company are allowed. The Insurance Company is completely exonerated from liability. It is held that the claimants shall be entitled to recover the entire compensation amount only from the owner and driver of the offending tractor, who shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the same.
19. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellants- claimants 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.
20.Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of and the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 22-Dec-25 04:00:57 PM