Madhya Pradesh High Court
The New India Assurance Comp.Ltd. vs Smt. Rama on 12 November, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916
1 MA-1297-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1297 of 2005
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMP.LTD.
Versus
SMT. RAMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for respondents.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 177 of 2006
SMT. RAMA AND OTHERS
Versus
BHURE @ PRADEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P.Gupta- Advocate for appellants.
Shri B.K.Agarwal- Advocate for the Insurance Company.
ORDER
MA No. 1297 of 2005 under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by Insurance Company challenging the impugned Award dated 27.10.2005 passed by First Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia (M.P.) [hereinafter it would be referred to as '' the Claims Tribunal''] in Claim Case No.13/1999 seeking exoneration from liability to pay the compensation to the claimants whereas MA No.177/2006 under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by Claimants challenging the same impugned Award in same Claim Case on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916 2 MA-1297-2005
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 Dwarika, an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal with interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
4. Briefly stated, claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Dwarika Parihar, who was the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, son of claimant No.4, grandson of claimant No.5, and brother of claimant Nos.6 and 7. It was alleged that on 27.04.1999, the deceased was travelling in a marriage procession (barat) on tractor No. MP-07-H-4873 with an attached trolley. When the tractor reached between Village Semai and Sindhwari, Police Station Civil Lines, Datia, Dwarika Parihar fell from the tractor and was crushed under the wheel of the trolley due to rash and negligent driving of non-claimant No.1, resulting in his death. The incident was reported to the police. After investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed.
5. The non-claimants No.1 to 3 filed their written statements and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal, after framing issues and recording evidence, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation.
6. In MA.No.1297 of 2005, Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award is contrary to law and the evidence on record. It was contended that the offending vehicle was a tractor insured only for agricultural purposes, and it was misused for carrying passengers in a marriage procession, which is in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. By placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916 3 MA-1297-2005 Divisional Officer at Centre Point Complex) Vs. Smt. Malti and Others (MA No.819/2012 decided on 10.09.2025), wherein it has been held that the deceased therein was travelling by sitting on mudguard and the Court found the breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It was further submitted that no premium had been paid for carrying passengers either on the tractor or on the trolley. Thus, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company was improper, and the Company deserves to be fully exonerated. In support of his contention, he has further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Haripal Rawat and Others (MA No.651/2006) decided on 27.10.2025, Gwalior Bench and in the case of Arun Kumar Patel and Another Vs. Smt. Terasi Saket and Others reported in ILR 2008 M.P.282 passed by Division Bench of this Court.
7. In M.A.No.177/2006, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants filed this appeal on the ground for enhancement of compensation and submitted that Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in lower side. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that when there is no documentary proof of deceased, then Claims Tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased under the Minimum Wages Act, as the accident occurred on 27.04.1999 and according to the said Minimum Wages Act, an unskilled person's income should be assessed as Rs.1,823/- per month. So, compensation must be assessed by assessing the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.1823/- per month. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal committed error in not awarding reasonable compensation under the head of loss of consortium, in not applying an appropriate multiplier, in failing to add the component of future prospects, and in not granting just and reasonable amounts under other Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916 4 MA-1297-2005 conventional heads, such as loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, it is prayed that a reasonable and just amount of compensation be awarded to the claimants by enhancing the impugned Award. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rajendri and Others Vs. Ashok Singh and Others (in MA No.4934/2019 decided on 03.07.2025).
8. On the other hand, In MA No.1297 of 2005, learned counsel for the claimants opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company. It was contended that even if the vehicle was found to have been used in breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its statutory liability towards third party(s).
9. Similarly, in opposition to MA No.177 of 2006, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that the compensation awarded is just, proper, and based on the material available on record.
10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
11. On perusal of the FIR (Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2), it is evident and undisputed that the offending vehicle was being used for carrying passengers at the time of marriage procession (barat) and in the alleged accident, the deceased was seated on the tractor.
The tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes. Therefore, using it to carry passengers in a barat amounts to a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the vehicle was not being used for agricultural activity at the time of the incident.
12. In Arun Kumar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held in Para 8 as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916 5 MA-1297-2005
8. First we consider whether marriage party was being carried at the time of accident, though it has been stated by Terasi (C.W. 1), widow of deceased, that her husband was coming back after administering fertilizer from the agricultural field, at that time he met with an accident, she has denied the suggestion made in cross-
examination that he was coming back from the marriage party. Kedar (C.W. 2) has also supported the version of C.W. 1 and has also denied the suggestion made in the cross-examination that marriage party was being carried. Sarvjeet Singh Jammu (N.A.W. 1) has stated that enquiry was conducted by the insurer, it was found in the enquiry that marriage party was being carried in the tractor trolley at the relevant time, deceased was resident of Jaunpur and had come to attend the marriage, he himself was not personally aware of the facts. He has deposed on the basis of enquiry report. Rajesh Trivedi (N.A.W. 2) had made an enquiry, he has stated that on enquiry he has found that marriage party was being carried, no doubt about it that statements of Rajesh Trivedi and Sarvjeet Singh Jammu may not be enough to hold that marriage party was being carried, but when we consider the FIR which was the immediate document and there was no doubt with respect to correctness of the facts mentioned therein that marriage party was being carried at the time of accident in the tractor trolley, that being so the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on proper assessment of evidence, may (sic: witnesses) may lie but circumstances do not is the cardinal principle of evaluation of evidence. The immediate conduct evidence reflected in the shape of FIR indicates that marriage party in fact was being carried. It was not necessary to examine the lodger of the FIR as the document was filed on behalf of claimants and they have relied upon it, once they have relied upon it, the document could have been considered forming part of evidence and its evidentiary value has been found in the instant case. We place reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2526/2007, decided on 15th May, 2007, in which it has been considered that FIR can be relied upon, it is not necessary to examine the lodger of FIR so as to prove it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is proper in the instant case that there was violation of policy inasmuch as marriage party was being carried at the time of accident, case set up by the claimants has been rightly rejected.
13. In the present case, the FIR clearly records that the accident occurred while the tractor was being used to carry a marriage party (barat). This fact has been admitted by Smt. Sagun (AW-1) in paragraph 3 of her deposition and Jaihind (AW-2) in paragraph 2 of his evidence. Thus, from the evidence on record, it stands established that the vehicle was being used for carrying marriage party (barat) and was not being utilized for agricultural purposes. Such use constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the Insurance Company had not charged any premium for carrying passengers.
14. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is evident that the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. The said finding is not sustainable in law and warrants interference. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916 6 MA-1297-2005 Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and is hereby exonerated from its liability in entirety. The claimants shall be entitled to recover the compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed to this extent.
ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION (MA No.177/2006) :-
15. As regards income, the appellants/claimants claimed to earn Rs.3250/- per month as an unskilled labourer, but failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the same.
16. In view of the judgments in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172;
Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways , 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi, (2008) 3 ACC 134 , when documentary proof of income is lacking, income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable. So, income of the deceased must be assessed on the basis of circular issued by Collector, as per Minimum Wages Act and at the time accident, income of an unskilled labourer, Rs.1,823/- per month.
17. As regard to loss of income including future prospects, in the light of judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants are entitled for loss of income including future prospects. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), future prospects be added at 40%. Further, 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, Claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18. Further, in considered opinion of this Court, the just and proper amount of the income of the deceased in the present case is Rs.1,823/- per month as unskilled person as per Minimum Wages Act instead of notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum which has wrongly been assessed Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916 7 MA-1297-2005 by the Claims Tribunal.
18. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the following heads:
Heads Amount
Income Rs.1823 x 12= 21876/-
After adding Future Prospect 40% Rs.30626/-
After adding 3/4 dependency Rs.22.969.5/-
Multiplier 18 Rs.413451/-
Rs.40000 X 4 =
Loss of consortium
160000/-
Other heads (loss of estate and funeral
Rs.30000/-
expenses)
Total Rs.6,03,451/-
19. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in MA
No.177/2006 is Rs.6,03,451/- as against the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,23,451/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
20. Consequently, this MA No.177/2006 is partly allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.4,23,451/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its final realization. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The remaining conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain unaltered.
21. In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of the appeal, the appellants shall deposit the differential Court fee (if not already paid) within a period of one month from today and furnish proof of such payment before the Registry. Upon Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28916 8 MA-1297-2005 compliance, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this order.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the MA No.1297/2005 and M.A.No.177/2006 stands disposed of accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be kept in connected MA No.177/2006.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 18-Nov-25 04:37:45 PM