Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ved Mati Dubey vs Pradeep Dubey on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367
JBP:27367
1 M.A. No.2786/2014
No.278
and
M.A. No.2785/2014
No.278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 24th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 2786 of 2014
DR. VIDYAKANT DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
PRADEEP DUBEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satya Prakash Mishra - Advocate for the appellants.
appellants
Shri Dinesh Kaushal
Kaushal- Advocate for respondent No. 2.
MISC. APPEAL No. 2785 of 2014
SMT. VED MATI DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
PRADEEP DUBEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satya Prakash Mishra - Advocate for the appellants.
appellants
Shri Krishna Keshav Singh-
Singh Advocate for respondent No. 2.
2
JUDGMENT
Both the Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act 1988 being aggrieved by the common award dated 27.08.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 2 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 Rewa, District Rewa in MACC No. 253/2011 and MACC No.254/2011 whereby the claimants' claimants application under Section 166 of the M Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') has been dismissed by granting Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/ as compensation for no fault liability.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals, in short are that the incident had taken place on 07.03.2011 at ab about out 12:30 night when deceased Smt. Rama Devi and Devendra Kumar Dwivedi in MACC No. 253/2011 /2011 and MACC No. 254/2011 respectively were going to Maihar in Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No. MP M 53 TA 0737 and when the said vehicle was parked in Gram Parasiya Parasiya, some unknown vehicle dashed the standing vehicle on account of which Smt. Rama Devi and Devendra Kumar Dwivedi died. The matter was reported to Police Station Tala, District Satna. The Police olice registered the Crime No. 36/2011 against the unknown vehicle. Deceased eceased Rama Devi was aged about 54 years and was a house wife. Accordingly, the claim petition i.e. MACC No.253/2011 was filed by the claimants for grant of compensation of Rs.12,12,000/ Rs.12,12,000/-. Deceased eceased Devendra Kumar Dwivedi was running the shop of General S Store in District Sidhi and also worked as Agent in the Bima Company and was earning Rs.1,44,000/-
Rs.1,44,000/ yearly.
The claimants are dependents depend upon the deceased and have no earning source. Accordingly, the claim petition i.e. MACC No. 254/2011 was filed by the claimants imants for grant of compensation of Rs.27,40,000/ Rs.27,40,000/-.
3. The non-applicant applicant No.1 filed his written statement and submits that some unknown vehicle has dashed the Bolero Jeep which was standing on the side of the road.
road. He further submits that the Claimants have not impleaded the owner, driver and insurance company of the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 3 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 unknown vehicle as a party. He also submitted that at the time of accident he was holding the valid licence, valid permit and fitness of the vehicle, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation.
4. Non-applicant applicant No. 2 filed its written statement and submits that the non-applicant applicant No. 1 was neither holding any licence nor valid permit and fitness, therefore, on account of violation of the insurance policy, the non-applicant applicant No. 2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Non- applicant No. 2 further submits that the appellants/Claimants have not clarified as to how the accident occurred. Non-applicant applicant No. 2 also submitted that the applicants have stated that the accident occurred due to unknown vehicle, therefore, his case is of hit and run. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence dismissed the claim petitions filed by the appellants of the Act of 1988 by granting Rs.50,000/ Rs.50,000/- as compensation for no fault liability.
6. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant appellants that the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting the compensation under the Act of 1988 and dismissing the claim petitions by granting compensation only under no fault liability. It has been submitted that the appellants have pleaded and adduced evidence in respect of vehicle in which deceased- Rama Devi and Devendra Kumar Dwivedi were travelling.. It was also pleaded that the Driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and has parked the vehicle at the side where the unknown truck has dashed the vehicle by which the death has occurred. However, owner orr driver of the vehicle Bolero bearing Registration No. M.P53TA0737 in which the deceased were NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 4 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 travelling and the insurance company have been impleaded ed as party.
Only pleadings are in regard to the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling and which was parked at the side were made. Pleadings in regard to the offending vehicle of which the identity is unknown and which has dashed the vehicle causing the accident and death of the deceased Rama Devi and Devendra Kumar Dwivedi have not been pleaded. On the said facts the evidence has also been adduced but the learned Tribunal has as failed to consider that the cclaim laim case has been filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and applicants were required to be compensated accordingly. In fact the Claim Claims Tribunal vvide the impugned award holding no fault liability against the owner of the vehicle Bolero has granted Rs.50,000/ Rs.50,000/- compensation to the appellants appellant in both the appeals which is not just as per Section 168 and 166 of the Act of 1988.
7. To bolster the submission, submiss learned counsel for the appellants appellant has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case cases of Ningamma and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 710, Raj Rani and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 654 and Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 218.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ningamma (supra) in paragraph 34 has held as under:-
under:
"34. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with "just compensation" and even if in the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 5 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 pleadings no specific claim was made under Section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting "just compensation" in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty-bound duty bound and entitled to award "just compensation" irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not.
not."
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Rani (supra) in paragraph 13 has held as under:-
under:
"13 13 [Ed.: Para 13 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./93/2009 dated 23 23- 7-2009.] . Mr Nanda may be correct to some extent that for the purpose of computation of the total amount of compensation under Section 163-A 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the future prospect may not be of much relevance. But in a case where claim petition tition has been filed in terms of Section 166 of the Act, the same would, in our opinion, be a relevant factor. Mr Nanda may also be correct that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court. However, keeping in view the fact that such such a contention had all along been raised by the claimants even before the Tribunal and evidences have been adduced in respect thereof on their behalf, it is difficult to ignore the said contention of the appellants. It is not necessary in a proceeding und under er the Motor Vehicles Act to go by any rules of pleadings or evidence. Section 168 of the Act speaks about grant of just compensation. The court's duty being to award just compensation, it will try to arrive at the said finding irrespective of the fact as to whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 6 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 or not."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra) in paragraph 11 has held as under:-
under:
"11. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] this Court considered the legitimacy of the multiplier method evolved and applied by the British courts and approved the same. The relevant paragraphs of that judgment are extracted below: (SCC pp. 182-83182 83 & 185, paras 9-10, 9 13 & 16) "9.. The assessment of damages damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the th chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.
10. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance self maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase purchase.
*** NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 7 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278
13.. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
***
16. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific.
unscientific For instance, if the deceased deceased was, say 25 years of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years--virtually years virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 45--and even if one-thirdthird or one-
one fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this Court as well have arrived at compensation ion on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 8 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 awards in individual cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptiona exceptionall and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 insofar as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."
(emphasis emphasis supplied) supplied
11. On the basis of aforesaid, the counsel for the appellant appellantss submitted that the amount of compe compensation nsation is not just and proper and the Tribunal ought to have given more compensation instead of compensation for no fault liability.
12. On the other hand refuting the arguments made by the counsel for the appellants,, counsel for the Insurance I Company ompany has submitted that the claim application was itself not maintainable and only on sympathetic ground, the C Claims laims Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/ nsation for no fault liability as the accident was not proved as compensation NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 9 M.A. No.2786/2014 No.278 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 required under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.. It has been further submitted that to get compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988,, the person who is claiming compensation compensation is required to prove rash and negligent act ct of the offending vehicle. However, the appellant appellants have neither impleaded leaded the owner of the offending vehicle nor the insurance company as party. In n fact only the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling has been impleaded as a party. It is not the case of the appellants that driving of the vehicle Bolero bearing Registration stration No. MP53TA0737 in which the deceased were travelling was rash and negligent. In fact it was pleaded that it was parked and unknown vehicle has dashed the said vehicle, therefore, the compensation which has been awarded as no fault liability was also also not required to be awarded to the appellants as it was to be under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and not under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.
1988..
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. It is seen from the application underr Section 166 of the Act of 1988 that the owner of the vehicle Bolero bearing Registration No. M.P53TA0737 and the Insurance I Company- respondent No. No.2, who has insured the vehicle have been impleaded as non-applicants applicants under the application. There is no averment in respect of rash and negligent driving of the owner of the said Bolero vehicle due to which accident has occurred. The said application ha has been replied by the owner non non-
applicant No.1 1 of the Bolero vehicle stating that the appellants/applicants /applicants have not impleaded the owner of the offending vehicle Truck, though hough in the FIR their identity and names name are mentioned. The Bolero Jeep against which the claim application has NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 10 M.A. No.278 No.2786/2014 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 been filed was parked arked and at the time of accident deceased Rama Devi and Devendra Kumar Dwivedi were inside the Jeep and it was being driven by the non-applicant applicant No. No.1/owner himself.
15. From bare perusal of the FIR (Ex.P/3), it is clear that the offence has been registered d against unknown vehicle and it is alleged that the death has occurred because of the accident caused by the unknown vehicle. The appellant appellants in their deposition before the he learned Tribunal in Para-2 have categorically stated that when the vehicle in which the deceased were sitting was hit by Truck from behind and two persons died on the spot. It has been admitted in Para-6 of the judgment udgment that the accident has caused because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck who dashed the vehicle from behind in which deceased were travelling.
16. On scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence and pleadings, it is crystal clear like transparent water that the offending vehicle was unknown truck against which application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been filed. In fact the application for compensation has been filed against the vehicle which was parked at the side, side as stated by the witnesses, and was not offending vehicle. To grant compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 1988,, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta and Another Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Another, reported in (1977) 2 Supremee Court Cases 441 has held that the concept of owners liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principle of law. The proof of negligence remains the linchpin to recover the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 11 M.A. No.278 No.2786/2014 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278 compensation.
18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in M.A. No. 2901/2018 (Santosh and Another Vs. Krishnalal Prajapati and Others) decided on 19.04.2023 that sine qua non for claiming compensation from the owner of the vehicle is to establish negligence on the part of the driver which needs to be indemnified indemn by the owner and in turn, owner needs to be indemnified by the insurer of the vehicle.
19. When the facts and evidence of the present case are evaluated and closely scrutinized,, it is found that in fact neither the owner of the vehicle which has caused the accident by rash and negligent driving nor the insurance company which insured the offending vehicle, vehicle have not been impleaded as party. The witnesses have fairly admitted that the accident has been caused by the unknown Truck which was not party to the application.
20. Counsel for the appellants appellant has relied on the judgmentss passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court are on different law and facts and based on Section 168 of the Act of 1988 for which the principle has been reiterated that the compensation should be jus justt and proper as per Section 168 of the Act of 1988 but nothing is shown by the counsel for the appellants that in the matters where the rash and negligent driving has not been proved can also been compensated under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 for no fau fault lt liability for just compensation. No fault liability claims are filed under Section 163 163-A but in the present case claim is filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.. So the cases relied upon by the counsel for the appellants appellant are on different footing and facts are distinguishable.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 12 M.A. No.278 No.2786/2014 and M.A. No.2785/2014 No.278
21. In such facts and circumstances of the case case, the Tribunal has rightly held that no award against the vehicle which has not caused accident or against which no pleadings and evidence have been adduced to cause accident can be granted,, therefore, the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal are just and proper and based on evidence adduced and material available on record. No perversity, illegality or irregularity ha has been pointed out by the counsel for the appellants.
appellant Thus, us, the findings arrived at by the Claims Tribunal are affirmed.
22. Accordingly, appeals appeal sans merits are hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
(DEEPAK DEEPAK KHOT KHOT) JUDGE AL Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2025.06.28 14:18:33 +05'30'