Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh vs Punnaram Dhakad on 24 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23864
1 MA-755-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 755 of 2006
RAMESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PUNNARAM DHAKAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arman Ali - Advocate for the appellants/claimants.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance
Company..
Ms. Yashshvi Sharma-Advocate for respondent No.1
ORDER
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellants/claimants arising out of the award dated 08/04/2006 passed by Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court) (hereinafter referred as "Claims Tribunal), District- Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No.82/2004 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The date of accident and negligence are not in dispute, however, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard is not in question.
3. As per the findings of the Tribunal in the case of death of Jhinguriya due to motor accident, Claims Tribunal has awarded Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 26-09-2025 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23864 2 MA-755-2006 compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,69,500/- with interest from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.
4. Brief facts of the case are that deceased- Jhinguariya and other passengers were travelling in tractor bearing registration No.MP06/JA-7509 but tractor had been turned over due to rashly and negligently driving of driver/respondent No.2 and met with an accident causing death of Jhinguria. Police Station Jaura, District Morena registered FIR at Crime No. 509/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. Thereafter, claimants filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for seeking compensation due to death of Jhinguria.
5. Respondents filed their written statement and denied all averments. Thereafter, Tribunal framed the issues and after evidence of both the parties, awarded compensation in favour of claimants.
6. Being aggrieved with the impugned Award, claimants filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation and submitted that Tribunal has committed an error in assessing income of deceased- Jhinguria, as he was milk seller and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month but Tribunal awarded compensation only on the basis of notional income. It is further submitted that accident occurred on 10/12/2003 and deceased died on 18/12/2003. He was under treatment in hospital for six days, therefore, Rs. 50,000/- have been incurred in medical treatment of deceased but Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000 in regard to medical treatment. Hence, it is prayed that reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded to the claimants.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 26-09-2025 06:33:50 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23864 3 MA-755-2006
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company filed a cross objection and submitted that deceased was sitting upon the tractor and no risk of unauthorized passengers were covered by the insurance policy taken by owner of the offending vehicle but Tribunal has committed an error imposing liability upon the Insurance Company. Hence, it is prayed that Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal.
9. Claimants filed claim petition and pleaded that deceased was going from Village- Parsota to Jaura sitting in tractor bearing registration No. MP06/JA-7509. When tractor was returning from Village Parsorta to Teekatgarhi, driver of tractor driving rashly and negligently turned over the tractor due to which deceased fell down from tractor and died.
10. Claimant-Rameshwar (A.W.1) in para No.22 of his claim petition pleaded that deceased was travelling in tractor but he had not dared to give evidence that deceased was travelling in tractor which was being used as a agricultural purpose. Considering the evidence of Rameshwar(A.W.1) and FIR (Ex.P.2), it is clear that deceased was sitting in tractor which was not being used for agricultural purposes and deceased was traveling in tractor as gratuitous passenger. On perusal of insurance policy (Ex D.1)., it is clear that Insurance company is liable to take premium for third party and not for cleaner, employee or other person.
11. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Bakaridan Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 26-09-2025 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23864 4 MA-755-2006 & 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 present case, it is clear that as deceased was travelling in a tractor as a passenger or labour, therefore, the deceased could not be treated as third party and there is no premium taken by the Insurance Company for labour or passenger seated on the tractor
13. 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 from the owner and driver of the tractor who shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
14. In the case at hand, deceased was travelling in the tractor and Insurance Company has not taken any premium of any passenger or labour sitting/travelling in tractor. So, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Appellants/claimants are entitled to get compensation only from driver and owner of the offending vehicle who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
15. This Court is of the considered view that Tribunal has committed an error imposing liability upon the Insurance company alongwith owner and driver jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 26-09-2025 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23864 5 MA-755-2006 findings in this regard of Tribunal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally alongwith owner and driver.
Claimants are entitled to get compensation from owner and driver jointly and severally.
16. Accordingly, Cross appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
17. Counsel for appellants filed this appeal for seeking enhancement of compensation. Tribunal assessed income of deceased only on the notional basis. It is true that claimants have not adduced any evidence in regard to income of deceased at the time of accident.
18. In the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs Bababhai Nagjibai Rabari & Anr, 2025 Live Law (SC) 871 , wherein Apex Court held that if claimant does not produce income proof, Insurer must furnish applicable minimum wages Notification.
19. This Court is of the considered view that due to lack of evidence, income of deceased must be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Act as an unskilled labour i.e. 2147/- per month instead of Rs. 15,000/- per annum.
20. As claimants are brother, sister and nephew of deceased- Jhingariya, so they are not entitled to get compensation towards consortium because they are not covered under the provision as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131.
21. As regards loss of income including future prospects, in the light Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 26-09-2025 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23864 6 MA-755-2006 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 25% and 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 the deceased is to be taken into account, multiplier of 14 has rightly been applied by the Claims Tribunal.
22. Accordingly, appellants- claimants are entitled to get compensation under the following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.2,147X 12= 25,764/- pa
Future Prospects@25% Rs.6,441/-
Total Income Rs. 32,205/-
personal expense 1/4 Rs.8052/-
Multiplier 14
Loss of Income Rs.24,153 X 14= 3,38,142/-
Other Heads:-
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Total Compensation = Rs.3,88,142/-
23. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.3,88,142/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of Rs.1,69,500/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs2,18,642/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
24. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.2,18,642/-. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 26-09-2025 06:33:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23864 7 MA-755-2006 enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
25. 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.
26. In view of the above, miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants/claimants stands disposed of.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 26-09-2025 06:33:50 PM