Madhya Pradesh High Court
The New India Assurance Com Ltd Thr vs Smt. Gurumeet Kaur on 25 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19262
1 MA-603-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 603 of 2016
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COM LTD THR
Versus
SMT. GURUMEET KAUR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Vilas Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Gyan Singh Yadav- Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 677 of 2016
SMT. GURUMEET KAUR AND OTHERS
Versus
DALVEER SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gyan Singh Yadav- Advocate for appellants.
Shri Ram Vilas Sharma- Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
MA No. 603 of 2016 under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by Insurance Company challenging the impugned Award dated 18.03.2016 passed by Fifth Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior [hereinafter it would be referred to as '' the Claims Tribunal''] in Claim Case No.07/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal exonerated Insurance Company from liability where as MA No.677/2016 under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by appellants/Claimants Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 03-Sep-25 10:34:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19262 2 MA-603-2016 challenging the common impugned award in common claim case on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Since facts of both miscellaneous appeals are same and they are arising out of common award passed by the Claims Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. As per findings of the Claims Tribunal in the case of death of Ravindra Singh, an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,65,000/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal with interest from filing of claim petition till its realization.
4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company in M.A.No.603/2016 submitted that the impugned award passed by Claims Tribunal is illegal, contrary to law and is also contrary to the facts and material on record. It is further submitted that the deceased Ravindra Singh was travelling by sitting on mudguard in the said tractor as passenger with other persons and the said tractor was insured with Insurance Company only for personal agricultural work only. This fact is on record that at the time of alleged accident, the insured vehicle was driven on rent for commercial purpose and this fact on record itself has been found proved that the said tractor was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to indemnify the liability. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has committed error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. When Insurance Company has specifically pleaded before the Claims Tribunal and proved the fact that at the time of alleged accident, the said vehicle was insured only for personal use for the agricultural purpose not for any other purpose. Therefore, the finding recorded by Claims Tribunal is without jurisdiction, illegal, perverse, against the law and deserves to be set aside.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 03-Sep-25 10:34:05 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19262 3 MA-603-2016
5. Further, learned counsel for Insurance Company has relied on the various judgments passed in the case of Mithlesh and Others Vs. Brijendra Singh Baghel and Others reported in 2007 ACJ 10, New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs. Papamma and Another reported in 2007 ACJ 13, The National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, Division Officer Jayendraganj, Lashkar Gwalior Vs. Banwari Lal and Others (M.A.No.125/2004 decided on 12.10.2017 and Bhav Singh Vs. Savirani and Others reported in 2008 (1) MPLJ (MA No.687/1999 decided on 11.10.2007) in which it was held that a person who was travelling on the mudguard, is not liable to get any compensation from Insurance Company.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the impugned award passed by Claims Tribunal is correct in the eye of law and supported the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. Relying on the judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Radhabai W/o Late Mukesh & Ors. reported in MACD 2013(1) (M.P.) 192 (MA.No.1701 of 2011 decided on 06.11.2012), it is contended on behalf of the claimants that on the alleged date of accident, the deceased was travelling by sitting on the offending tractor and the same was insured with the Insurance Company and a premium has been issued only for the provision of sitting only for two persons on the mudguard of the both sides of the tractor. So, insurance Company is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants.
7. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that owner and driver of the offending tractor breached the terms and conditions of the policy because deceased was sitting on the mudguard and it is the duty of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to presume before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 03-Sep-25 10:34:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19262 4 MA-603-2016 was told to sit on trolley instead of sitting on the mudguard openly.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
9. After perusal of the impugned award and record of the Claims Tribunal, it was found that Insurance Company took the premium for Driver and one other person, but according to the evidence of the RTO witness Balram Jatav, it is clear that sitting capacity of the offending tractor is one person only i.e. Driver and no one other than Driver can sit other in tractor. But, it is clear that Insurance Company took the premium to the extent that only two persons including the Driver can sit in the tractor. It is also clear that tractor was being driven by Dalveer Singh at the time of accident for commercial purpose only.
10. In the present case, RTO witness Balaram Jatav stated in his examination-in-chief that sitting capacity on the tractor is only for one person and no one can sit on the tractor other than Driver. So according to document Ex.D-1 (registration certificate), it is clear that sitting capacity on the tractor is only one person, therefore, citations relied on behalf of the claimants does not help them. It is also clear that Insurance Company took the premium for only two persons including the Driver and deceased was travelling in alleged tractor going to the market for selling of the agricultural produce, therefore, it is clear that tractor was used for commercial purpose, but deceased was sitting on mudguard whereby the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company have been vi olated. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, Insurance Company took the premium of only one person so it is the duty of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants with liberty to recover from owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
11. Now in M.A.No.677/2016, learned counsel for the claimants Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 03-Sep-25 10:34:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19262 5 MA-603-2016 submitted that they have filed this appeal for seeking enhancement of compensation. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of deceased to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month in stead of Rs.20,000/- per month as deceased was aged around 40 years at the time of accident and is a hale and hearty person. Deceased was doing agricultural work having 4.243 hectare agricultural land. It is further submitted that Tribunal has not awarded any future prospects, but claimants are entitled to get 25 per cent future prospects with regard to death of deceased Ravindra Singh. Hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of appeal (M.A.No.677/2016).
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
14. In the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Yogesh Devi & Ors AIR 2012 SC 945, it was held that income of the deceased/injured out of agricultural land would still continue to accrue to the benefit of the family. Similarly, in the case of Ponnumany Alias Krishnan & Anr vs V.A. Mohanan & Ors AIR 2008 SC 2014 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that income out of agricultural land would still continue to accrue to the benefit of the family of deceased/injured.
15. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2157 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that income from agriculture is a normal rule/general principle about the deprivation of income is directly not applicable to the cases where agricultural income is the source of income of deceased/injured and other circumstances have to be considered Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 03-Sep-25 10:34:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19262 6 MA-603-2016 because the agricultural land is always accrued in favour of successors(s) of deceased or the the injured himself as it is.
16. Considering all documents filed by the claimants and evaluating evidence available on record in respect of income and lack of documentary as well as oral evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that Tribunal has committed an error in assessing income of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.5,520/- per month for unskilled labour in view of Minimum Wages Act and looking to the age of the deceased, 25 per cent towards future prospect ought to have applied by the Claims Tribunal in the light of decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 ACJ 2700, therefore, claimants are entitled for future prospect at the rate of 25%. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to get following compensation amount as under:-
Heads Amount
Monthly income 5,520/-PM
Total Income 5520 X 12 =66240 PA
Future prospects 16560 (25%)
Income+Future prospects (66240 + 16560 = 82800)
Personal Expenses 1/4th 20700
Multiplier (17) 62100 (82800-20700) X 14 = 869400
Love and affection 100000/-
Loss of consortium 48000 X 4 = 192000
Other Heads 36000
Total Rs.11,97,400/-
17. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant case is Rs.11,97,400/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of Rs.8,65,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 03-Sep-25 10:34:05 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19262 7 MA-603-2016 additional sum of Rs.3,32,400/- over and above the amount, which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
18. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.3,32,400/-. The 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.
19. 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.
20. In view of above, miscellaneous appeal (M.A.No.677/2016) filed by the claimants stands partly allowed and appeal (MA No. 603 of 2016) is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the file of connected M.A.No.677/2016.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 03-Sep-25 10:34:05 AM