Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Mangal Singh Rajawat vs Rahul Sharma on 18 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14915
1 MA-734-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 18 th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 734 of 2009
SHIV MANGAL SINGH RAJAWAT
Versus
RAHUL SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/- in the amount awarded by Third Additional MACT Gwalior, vide award dated 19.01.2009 in Claim Case No.229/2008 whereby the MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.37,000/- alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum to the claimant.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that on the date of the accident, 03.01.07, at around 3:30 PM, the appellant was going from GICT College to home with his father on motorcycle bearing registration number M.P.07 K.J. 4034. The appellant's father was riding the motorcycle slowly on his side and reached near Chetakpuri Gol Pahadia Square, at the same time, respondent No.1/non-applicant No.1 by driving the motorcycle bearing registration number M.P.07 M.B. 4001 rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle bearing registration number M.P.07 K.J. 4034 with great force, due to which the appellant along with the motorcycle fell at the spot of the incident, and the appellant sustained grievous injurious. He was taken to Birla Hospital from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 7/26/2025 10:35:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14915 2 MA-734-2009 spot. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Jhansi Road at Crime No.20/2007 3 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding an LMV license while he was driving a motorcycle, and therefore, was not possessing a valid and effective driving license for the said vehicle, therefore, there was a breach of policy conditions. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bhagat Goutam Vs. Jethanand Harwani and Others , (2007) 3 MPHT 193. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.37,000/- in favour of the claimant, despite the fact that he sustained fracture of tibia and fibula in the left leg and remained hospitalized in Birla Hospital. He remained bedridden for three to four months. Hence, the compensation amount under various heads ought to be enhanced. He has also relied upon the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in case of Lalla Mahate & Another Vs. Kailash Ahirwar & Others.
4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has supported the impugned award and submitted that in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha and Others (2008) 12 SCC 385 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a person holding a HMV licence is not authorized to drive a two wheeler/scooter, and therefore, there was a breach of the policy conditions. Consequently, the Insurance Company was exonerated from liability to pay compensation. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has appropriately awarded the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 7/26/2025 10:35:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14915 3 MA-734-2009 compensation amount, and there is no ground for enhancement.
5 . In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant has submitted that a "pay and recover" order may be passed against the Insurance Company.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In case of Ram Bhagat Goutam (Supra) , it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the driver was holding a LMV licence but was driving a motorcycle. It was observed that LMV license requires higher driving responsibility than a motor cycle licence and that the owner had reason to believe the driver was competent as he held an LMV Licence. Therefore, held that this was not a substantial breach of policy conditions by the owner, and the insurer was held jointly and severally liable with the driver and owner of the vehicle for paying compensation to the claimant.
8. However, in case of Zaharulnisha (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since the driver of the offending vehicle was driving different class of vehicle (holding a driving license for HMV instead of a license for driving a scooter), therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. It was further held that the Insurance Company is though not liable to pay the amount of compensation but in the nature of the case, it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle. Para 21 & 22 of the judgment are relevant which are as infra :
"21. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 7/26/2025 10:35:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14915 4 MA-734-2009 who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing a driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act.
22. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant Insurance Company though not liable to pay the amount of compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle viz. Respondent 8, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him nor has he chosen to appear before this Court to contest this appeal. This direction is given in the light of the judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur [(2004) 2 SCC 1 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 370] and Deddappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 595 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 517]."
9. This citation has also been relied upon in the case of Lalla Mahate (supra).
10. The factual aspects in this case are similar as was in Zaharulnisha (supra); therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. However, it is under obligation to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and shall thereafter be entitled to recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The conclusion of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 4 does not warrant interference. However, the order of 'pay and recover' is appropriate in this case.
11. As far as enhancement is concerned, the claimant sustained fractures of the tibia and fibula, along with other injuries. He was admitted to Birla Hospital. A rod was implanted in his left leg. He remained bedridden for three to four months. Though no permanent disability has been found proved to the claimant but considering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained, the amount awarded Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 7/26/2025 10:35:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14915 5 MA-734-2009 for the injuries appears to be on the lower side.
12. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, as well as other relevant heads, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced by a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which shall be payable to the appellant/claimant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to first pay the compensation amount to the claimant and shall thereafter be entitled to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
14. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of .
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE Aman Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 7/26/2025 10:35:37 AM