Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kamlabai vs Bhartendra Tiwari on 20 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2558
1 MA-641-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 641 of 2014
SMT. KAMLABAI AND OTHERS
Versus
BHARTENDRA TIWARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for the appellants/claimants.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal-Advocate for respondent No.5/L.T. General
Insurance Company Ltd
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar-Advocate for respondent No.3/Shriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
ORDER
This misc. appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guna (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 116/2012, primarily on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement thereof.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.09.2012, the deceased Kailash Raikwar was travelling in Truck bearing registration No. MP-08-HA-8085, which was owned by him and driven by respondent No. 4. He had gone to procure sand for construction purposes and was returning with the said material in the vehicle. At about 04:45 a.m., near village Sardarpura, a mini bridge on the route was found damaged and a bypass approach road had been constructed adjacent to it. On the said approach road, a Dumper bearing registration No. MP-33-H-1250 was parked Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2558 2 MA-641-2014 and was covered with mud. While attempting to pass the dumper through the approach road, respondent No. 4 dashed the vehicle against the parked dumper, as a result of which the deceased Kailash Raikwar sustained grievous injuries. He was taken for medical treatment to the District Hospital, Shivpuri, where he succumbed to the injuries on the same day during treatment.
3. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,35,000/-. The Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating the evidence available on record, found that claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 22,52,276/- . However, the Tribunal directed respondent No. 4 and 5 to pay only Rs. 2,00,000/- on the ground that the rash and negligent act was attributable to the insured vehicle and that the personal accident cover under the policy was limited to that amount.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimants/appellants have preferred the present appeal contending that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly exonerated respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from liability. It is further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-33-H-1250 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. This fact, according to the appellants, is corroborated by the testimony of the sole eyewitness Lalaram, who was the driver of the Truck. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned findings be set aside and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to pay compensation to the claimants.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned award.
7. The claimants placed on record the criminal proceedings, including the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2558 3 MA-641-2014 FIR, which was lodged against the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-08-HA-8085 in which the deceased was travelling. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the said vehicle, which was owned by the deceased Kailash Chand Raikwar.
8. In the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the driver of vehicle bearing registration No. MP-08-HA-8085 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and collided with the dumper bearing registration No. MP-33-H-1250.
9. The claimants themselves filed these documents and got them exhibited. Therefore, they cannot deny the contents of those documents.
10. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
''13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them.
14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise.
15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other party has been obtained, the former in our opinion cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon.''
11. It is also noteworthy that the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-
08-HA-8085 did not lodge any FIR against the driver of the dumper bearing registration No. MP-33-H-1250.
12. The Claims Tribunal has discussed each and every aspect of the matter in detail Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2558 4 MA-641-2014 in the impugned award and has rightly exonerated respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from their liability.
13. The vehicle bearing registration No. MP-08-HA-8085 was insured with respondent No. 5, and since the owner of the said vehicle was the deceased himself, the insurance policy provided coverage only under the personal accident clause, which was limited to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal rightly directed respondent No. 5 to pay the said amount to the claimants.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned award. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/22/2026 11:24:55 AM