Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeevaram Gurger vs Pushpendrakumar on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16268
1 MA-981-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 981 of 2011
JEEVARAM GURGER
Versus
PUSHPENDRAKUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P.Gupta - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.K.Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance
company.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation by Rs.60,000/- against the award dated 18.02.2011 passed by 11th Member MACT (Fast Track) Gwalior in Claim Case No.51/2010, whereby learned MACT has awarded compensation of Rs.44,000/- in favour of the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in road accident.
2.The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2009, the appellant by sitting on motorcycle bearing registration number MP07 KJ0450 as a pillion rider was going from Malanpur to his house. The said motorcycle was being driven by his son Bhupendra Singh. As soon as they reached near B.S. Filling Center at Malanpur-Gwalior road, motorcycle bearing registration number UP79 C1210 being driven rashly and negligently came from behind Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 8/1/2025 4:15:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16268 2 MA-981-2011 and dashed his motorcycle . Due to which, he sustained grievous injury on his head and other injuries on different parts of the body.
3.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of accident, the motorcycle was being driven without valid and effective license while driver of the offending vehicle was having license to drive LMV. He relied upon the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ram Bhagat Goutam Vs. Jethanand Harwani and Others, (2007) 3 MPHT 193, in which it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court that the driver was holding a LMV license but was driving a motorcycle. It was held that LMV license requires higher driving responsibility than a motorcycle license. Therefore, Insurance Company is liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation. However, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha and Others (2008) 12 SCC 385 it has been held that since the driver of the offending vehicle was driving different class of vehicle, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. It was further held that the insurance company is though not liable to pay the amount of compensation, but in the nature of the case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that keeping in view the law laid in aforesaid cases, the order of pay and recover is appropriate.
4.It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on lower side. The claimant Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 8/1/2025 4:15:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16268 3 MA-981-2011 remained unconscious for two days, he was put on ventilator, CT Scan was done and he has been discharged on 21.09.2009 after remaining admitted for 10 days. He was under immense pain and suffering during this period, but learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the injury. For pain and suffering, only Rs.2000/- has been awarded. Therefore, he prays for appropriate enhancement in favour of claimant.
5.Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the prayer on the ground that learned Tribunal has appropriately exonerated the Insurance Company and also awarded just and proper compensation. There is no ground for enhancement.
6.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, in the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the law laid down in case of Ram Bhagat Goutam (supra) and Zaharulnisha (supra), the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to claimant with recovery rights from owner and driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, pay and recover order is proper in this regard.
7.As far as enhancement is concerned, keeping in view the fact that claimant was on ventilator and for two days, he remained unconscious and remained admitted for 10 days in hospital and that he was under immense pain and suffering during this period, the amount towards pain and suffering as Rs.2000/- appears on lower side. No amount has been awarded towards head injury. In the considered opinion of this Court, on both the heads, an amount of Rs.26000/- may conveniently be enhanced in favour of the claimant in lump-sum, which would be just and appropriate.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 8/1/2025 4:15:32 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16268 4 MA-981-2011
8.Therefore, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by Rs.26,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. The insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation first to the appellant/claimant with liberty to recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Other terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE ms/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 8/1/2025 4:15:32 PM