Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guddi Devi vs Indrajeet Singh (D) Lrs Narendra Singh on 5 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249
1 MA-390-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 344 of 2009
INDRAJEET SINGH("D")TH:LRS NARENDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
GUDDI DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Singh Rathore - Advocate for legal heirs of owner of the
vehicle- appellant No.1 Indrajeet Singh (since dead) and driver of the
vehicle- appellant No.2- Gendalal.
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate on behalf of Shri Kuldeep Singh-
Advocate for respondent No.5/Insurance Company.
Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta-Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and
4/claimants.
Respondent No.1- claimant has died during penency of appeal and her
name has been deleted.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 390 of 2009
GUDDI DEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
INDRAJEET SINGH (D) LRS NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P. Gupta- Advocate for appellants/claimants
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate on behalf of Shri Kuldeep Singh-Advocate on
behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
Shri Ajay Singh Rathore-Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (owner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 1/9/2026
10:38:36 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249
2 MA-390-2009
and driver of vehicle).
ORDER
MA No. 344/2009 has been preferred by the appellants, namely the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, challenging the award to the extent the Insurance Company has been exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the claimants.
2. MA No. 390/2009 has been preferred by the claimants on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. The facts of both the appeals are identical and they arise out of the common award dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Lahar, District Bhind, in Claim Case No. 05/2008. Therefore, both the appeals were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
4. The necessary facts for adjudication of both the appeals, in brief, are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of Charan Singh in a motor accident. It was alleged that on 06.12.2005 at about 12:00 noon, in village Machhand, when Charan Singh was standing near the flour mill of Banwari Kachhi on the main road, appellant No.2/driver Gendalal, while driving the offending tractor bearing registration No. MP 30/M-0969 rashly and negligently, dashed against Charan Singh, resulting in his death on the spot. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/9/2026 10:38:36 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249 3 MA-390-2009 was further alleged that at the time of the accident, appellant No.1 Indrajeet Singh (since deceased) was the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.5, New India Assurance Company Limited. FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased, Ramdevi, at Police Station Raun, District Bhind. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants filed their written statements before the Claims Tribunal and denied the allegations.
5. The Claims Tribunal, after framing issues and appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,56,180/-. The Insurance Company was exonerated from liability and the owner and driver were directed to pay the compensation.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel appearing for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in absolving the Insurance Company from liability. It was contended that the two eye-witnesses named in the FIR, namely Karan Singh Kachhi and Munna Singh Kachhi, were not examined, and instead Tilak Singh (A.W.2) was examined, whose testimony was not relied upon by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the deceased was standing on the roadside and was not sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Hence, the Insurance Company ought not to have been exonerated.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that Ramdevi, who lodged the FIR, was not an eye-witness and her evidence was hearsay. It was contended that the evidence on record established that the deceased was standing on the roadside and not sitting on the mudguard of the tractor.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/9/2026 10:38:36 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249 4 MA-390-2009
8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the income of the deceased assessed by the Claims Tribunal was on the lower side. It was argued that at the time of the accident, the income of an unskilled labourer ought to have been assessed at Rs.2,330/- per month and compensation should have been calculated accordingly. Therefore, enhancement of compensation was sought.
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that no interference was warranted. He prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.
10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
11. Upon perusal of FIR (Ex.P.2), it is found that FIR was lodged by Ramdevi- mother of deceased- Charan Singh in Police Station Raun District Bhind wherein she specifically mentioned that driver of offending vehicle i.e. tractor which was owned by one Raghuveer S/o Chhatrapal Kachhi resident of Mahavir Ganj rolled over the wheel of offending tractor upon the body of the Charan Singh when he fell down from the mudguard of the Tractor due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. This FIR was exhibited by claimants as (Ex.P.2) in which it is clearly mentioned that deceased was sitting on the tractor and due to rash and negligently driving of tractor, Charan Singh fell down from tractor and died.
12. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Premlata Shukla and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paras 13, 14 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/9/2026 10:38:36 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249 5 MA-390-2009 and 15 held as under:-
13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the first information report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them.
14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document having been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise.
15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other party has been obtained, the former in our opinion cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon. In Hukam Singh3 the law was correctly been laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court stating: (PLR p. 911, para 8).
"8. Mr G.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Ram Partap had produced only his former deposition and gave no evidence in court which could be considered by the Additional District Judge. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention. The trial court had discussed the evidence of Ram Partap in the light of the report Exhibit D-1 produced by him. The Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal could have commented on that evidence and held it to be inadmissible if law so permitted. But he did not at all have this evidence before his mind. It was not a case of inadmissible evidence either. No doubt the procedure adopted by the trial court in letting in a certified copy of the previous deposition of Ram Partap made in the criminal proceedings and allowing the same to be proved by Ram Partap himself was not correct and he should have been examined again in regard to all that he had stated earlier in the statement made by him in the committing court. It appears that the counsel for the parties in order to save time did not object to the previous deposition being proved by Ram Partap himself who was only cross- examined. It is not a case where irrelevant evidence had been let in with the consent of the parties but the only objection is that the procedure followed in the matter of giving evidence in court was not correct. When the parties themselves have allowed certain statements to be placed on the record as a part of their evidence, it is not open to them to urge later either in the same court or in a court of appeal that the evidence produced was inadmissible. To allow them to do so would indeed be permitting them both to approbate and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/9/2026 10:38:36 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249
6 MA-390-2009 reprobate."
13. From perusal of the record, it is clear that FIR (Ex.P-2) was exhibited by the claimants during evidence in the presence of the owner and driver of offending vehicle, and no objection was raised at that stage. Therefore, the owner and driver cannot subsequently resile from the contents of the FIR which were not favourable to them.
14. From perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the Claims Tribunal discussed all relevant aspects in paragraph 13 of the award and recorded a finding that the deceased was sitting on the tractor. It was also found that no premium had been paid for any person other than the driver of the tractor.
15. 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.
16. In view of the settled legal position, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
17. No illegality or perversity is found in the findings recorded by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/9/2026 10:38:36 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249 7 MA-390-2009 Claims Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance Company from liability. The award does not call for interference on this issue. Accordingly, MA No. 344/2009 filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle fails and is hereby dismissed.
18. So far as MA No.390/2009 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, it is found that the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,750/- per month, which is not in accordance with law. The income ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages at Rs.2,330/- per month.
19. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, future prospects at the rate of 40% are required to be added. Applying the multiplier of 17 and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the compensation is recalculated as under:-
Head of Compensation Calculation Amount (Rs.) Annual Income 2,330 × 12 =27,960 Future Prospects @ 40% 27,960 × 40% =11,184 Total Annual Income 27,960 + 11,184 = 39,144 Dependent's Share (3/4) 39,144 × 3/4 ==29,358 Multiplier 29,358 × 17 == 4,99,086 Loss of 40,000 × 3 claimants (Mahesh Kumar, Ravi 1,20,000 Consortium Kumar and Ramdevi) Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses - 30,000 Total Compensation 4,99,086 + 1,20,000 + 30,000= 6,49,086
20. Thus, the just and proper compensation payable is Rs.6,49,086/- as against Rs.2,56,180/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The claimants are Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/9/2026 10:38:36 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:249 8 MA-390-2009 entitled to an additional sum of Rs.3,92,906/-.
21. Accordingly, MA No.390/2009 filed by claimants is partly allowed. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The amount shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All other conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
22. Both the miscellaneous appeals stand disposed o f in the above terms.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/9/2026 10:38:36 AM