Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriential Insurance Com.Ltd. vs Nikhil Kevat on 20 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2542
1 MA-1124-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1124 of 2014
THE ORIENTIAL INSURANCE COM.LTD.
Versus
NIKHIL KEVAT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shrinivas Gajendragadkar - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput-Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and
2/claimants.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 1135 of 2014
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
DEEPENDRA KEVAT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shriniwas Gajendragadkar-Advocate for appellant/Insurance Company.
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput-Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4/claimants.
ORDER
Miscellaneous Appeals, namely MA No. 1124/2014 and MA No. 1135/2014, arise out of the common award dated 03.09.2014 passed by the Third Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guna (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 108/2013 and Claim Case No. 109/2013.
2. Both the appeals have been filed by the appellant Insurance Company Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2542 2 MA-1124-2014 challenging the said award on the ground of exoneration from liability.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award and involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants preferred claim applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal, pleading that on 28.05.2013 at approximately 5:45 a.m. when Ashok Kewat, his wife, the deceased Ramkumari Bai with their children were traveling from Guna to Shadora on their motorcycle. As soon as Ashok's bicycle reached the village of Behtaghat on the Guna Ashoknagar Road, the driver of vehicle MP07/P/0315 driving at high speed and negligently, struck Ashok's motorcycle, causing the bus wheel to roll over Ashok and his wife Ramkumari Bai, resulting in their neck injuries. The Ashok Kewat and his wife Kumari Bai died in the accident. Upon reporting the accident to the Cantonment Police Station, FIR was registered and and a charge sheet was filed against driver of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company filed its written statement. After framing the issues and appreciating the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal allowed the claim applications filed by the claimants.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant Insurance Company preferred the present appeals on the ground that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts, material available on record, and settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. It was contended that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in allowing the claim applications despite the fact that the accident occurred due to negligence on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2542 3 MA-1124-2014 the part of the driver-Ashok of the motorcycle. It was further submitted that at the time of the accident, the motorcycle was overloaded by carrying three persons, which made the vehicle unstable, thereby clearly establishing negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. Hence, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
8. The appellant/ Insurance Company mainly contended that at the time of the accident, the motorcycle was being driven with three persons riding on it, which is a violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, amounting to a clear breach of statutory provisions. It was submitted that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others, 2008 AIR (SCW) 2045 , wherein it was held that even if the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages cannot be defeated, but the compensation may be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.
9. At the outset, it is the duty of the appellant Insurance Company to establish that the deceased was negligent.
10. On consideration of the evidence adduced before the Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that the Insurance Company failed to lead any cogent or substantial evidence to prove that the deceased was negligent in driving the motorcycle.
11. In Devi Singh v. Vikram Singh, 2007 SCC Online MP 418 , a Full Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2542 4 MA-1124-2014 Bench of this Court held that merely carrying two pillion riders on a motorcycle in violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, by itself, constitute contributory negligence. Breach of a safety provision does not per se establish negligence unless contributory negligence is proved by substantive evidence. In the present case, the Insurance Company has failed to adduce any such evidence.
12. In view of the law laid down in Devi Singh (supra) , this Court finds that the driver/deceased-Ashok Kewat of the motorcycle cannot be held negligent merely on the ground of carrying three persons.
13. Accordingly, both the appeals are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order passed today be placed on the record of MA No. 1135/2014.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM