Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Singh Yadav vs Hariom Jatav on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803
1 MA-1603-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 28th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1603 of 2011
SURENDRA SINGH YADAV
Versus
HARIOM JATAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Meena Singhal - Advocate for appellant.
Shri N.S. Tomar - Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation by Rs.1,50,000/-, against the award dated 24.08.2011 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Morena, in Claim Case No.166/2010, whereby learned MACT has awarded compensation of Rs.77,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on the date of the accident, i.e., 29.11.2009, at around 2:30 PM, the appellant was standing with his brother-in-law, Jileram Yadav, in front of the water tank on the side of the Ambah-Morena public road in Village Jeegni in District Morena. At that time, non-applicant No.2, came by driving the pickup van bearing registration number MP-06/L-0298, owned by non-applicant No.1, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803 2 MA-1603-2011 rashly and negligently and hit the appellant. Due to which, the appellant suffered grievous injury. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Mata Basaiya at Crime No.114/2009 under Sections 279, 337 of IPC.
3 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the learned Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company while deciding Issue No.3 by holding that since the driver of the offending vehicle was driving a goods carriage vehicle and had only an LMV license, there was a breach of policy. However, in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., [(2017) 14 SCC 663] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the unladen weight of a transport vehicle is less than 7,500 kilograms, there is no breach of the insurance policy merely because the driver holds an LMV licence without a separate endorsement for driving transport vehicles. Keeping in view the law laid down in aforesaid case, the exoneration of Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation is not tenable. It is also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is on the lower side. The learned Tribunal has has assumed the percentage of the permanent disability as only 12%, whereas Ex. P-1, the permanent disability certificate, clearly shows that the claimant sustained 25% permanent disability. In this regard, Dr. Sanjeev Bandil (AW-1) also categorically deposed before the learned Tribunal. So far as the loss of income is concerned vis-à-vis the percentage of permanent disability, it amounts to 100%, inasmuch as the appellant/claimant, after the accident, became unable to continue his work as a mason. Since he was doing the work of mason, the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803 3 MA-1603-2011 side. The learned Tribunal has also not granted future prospects and compensation under other relevant heads as per the dictum in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It is also submitted that on both counts, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In support of her submissions, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2322/2025] , judgment dated 07.02.2025 passed in case of Hare Krushna Mahanta v. Himadari Sahu & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.2204/2025] and judgment dated 03.02.2016 passed by this Court in M.A. No.727/2006 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balveer Singh & Ors. ), and the decisions in cases o f Manoj Rathaur v. Anil Raheja & Ors. , IV (2015) ACC 21 (SC), and S. Perumal v. K. Ambika & Anr., 2015 ACJ 1117 .
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has opposed the appeal by submitting that the learned Tribunal, in Para 18 of the award, has rightly granted only Rs.4,000/- towards loss of income. Keeping in view the statement of Dr. Sanjeev (AW-1) and the facts revealed during cross-examination, the Tribunal has appropriately assessed the permanent disability at 12%. There is no ground for assuming higher percentage of permanent disability. The claimant has failed to prove that he was working as a mason and earning ₹4,500/- per month. The learned Tribunal has appropriately assessed and awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant. There is no ground for enhancement of the awarded amount.
It is further submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle had also Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803 4 MA-1603-2011 preferred an appeal (M.A. No.48/2012) arising out of the same accident and impugned award, but the said appeal has been dismissed due to non- compliance with a peremptory order. Therefore, the claimant cannot now raise the issue regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. As far as the learned Tribunal's conclusion on issue No. 3 is concerned, though admittedly the driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence of light motor vehicle while he was driving a transport vehicle, but it is also not in dispute that the transport vehicle had laden weight below 7,500 kg. In the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), this issue is no longer res integra, wherein it has been held that if the laden weight of a transport vehicle is less than 7,500 kg, then holding an LMV driving licence without an endorsement for driving a transport vehicle will not be deemed a violation of the policy condition. Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the conclusion on issue No.3 is erroneous, and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant.
7. As far as the permanent disability is concerned, Dr. Sanjeev (AW-
1), though, has stated that the claimant suffered a grievous injury in the left leg, and there was a fracture in the tibia and fibula bones, and an interlocking rod was implanted in the left leg. It is also stated that the claimant had pain and discomfort in the left leg while walking. He was having pain in sitting in Indian toilet, and his muscles were weakened by two centimeters, with a Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803 5 MA-1603-2011 movement loss of about 10-15 degrees. Though he admitted that, at the time of the x-ray, he found that the tibia and fibula bones had joined together. He stated that there was 25% permanent disability, but in cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he had not submitted the proforma for assessing the percentage of disability with Ex.P/1. It was also admitted by this witness that the percentage of permanent disability pertains only to the left leg, and he cannot say what was the percentage of permanent disability in reference to the whole body. He further stated that, in reference to the whole body, the percentage of disability may be around 10-12%. He also admitted that medical board is established for the issuance of such certificates, but no such certificate has been filed on behalf of the claimant.
8. The learned Tribunal, in light of the statement of Dr. Sanjeev (AW-1), has rightly concluded that the permanent disability in reference to the whole body is not more than 12%.
9. As far as the citations relied upon by the appellant in the cases of Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi (supra), Hare Krushna Mahanta (supra), Balveer Singh & Ors. (supra), Manoj Rathaur (supra) and S.Perumal (supra) are concerned, they are distinguishable on facts, having regard to the factual matrix of the present case. Therefore, the law laid down in aforesaid cases are not helpful to the claimant in the present matter.
10. As far as the enhancement is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the injured was a mason and therefore had an income of ₹4,500/- per month. This has been stated by Surendra Singh (AW/2)/claimant, supported by the statements of Jileram (AW/3) and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803 6 MA-1603-2011 Kedar Singh (AW/4). However, Surendra Singh (AW/2), in his cross- examination has stated that for the work of mason, he has not received any training. There is no document in respect of his work as a mason. He cannot say for whom he had worked as a mason. Since the claimant has claimed to be a mason, therefore, at least some document in respect of his occupation or income, ought to have been produced before the learned Tribunal. However, neither such document nor sufficient information in that regard has been submitted by the claimant. Mere averments in this behalf are not sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence is required to prove the income as stated by the claimant. In this context, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others vs. Mohammed Jameel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 is referable. The relevant paras 14 and 21 of that judgment in this regard are as infra:
"14.Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the person(s) liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant(s) has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards.
21.In the instant case, the main grievance of the appellant is that the High Court erred in reducing the monthly income of the deceased from Rs 7000 to Rs 4000. More so, when the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning about Rs 20,000 per month. It needs little emphasis that insofar as the question of earnings of the deceased is concerned, the onus lies on the claimants to prove this fact by leading Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803 7 MA-1603-2011 reliable and cogent evidence before the Tribunal. A bare assertion in the claim petition in that behalf is not sufficient to discharge that onus."
11. As discussed above, it is not proved that the injured was a mason and was having the income of ₹4,500/- per month. However, keeping in view the minimum wage of an unskilled labourer on the date of the accident, which was ₹3,620/- per month, the income of the injured may reasonably be assumed as ₹3,620/- per month. Towards the head of pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded ₹20,000/-, in the considered opinion of this Court, it ought to be ₹40,000/-. Towards special diet, attendant expenses and transportation, only ₹3,000/- has been granted to the claimant, which, in the opinion of this Court, ought to be ₹20,000/-. Towards medical expenses Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, which seems to be appropriate.
12. Keeping in view the monthly income of the injured as ₹3,620/-, and adding 40% future prospects and by calculating 12% permanent disability, applying multiplier of 16 (considering the age of the injured as 35 years), and thereafter adding the amounts under the aforementioned other heads, the total compensation comes to ₹2,01,768/-. Since the Claims Tribunal had awarded total compensation of ₹77,000/-, the appellant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation to the tune of ₹1,24,768/- (i.e., ₹2,01,768/- - ₹77,000/-).
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,24,768/-, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The other terms and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15803 8 MA-1603-2011 conditions of the award shall remain intact.
14. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE Aman Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 8/1/2025 3:28:19 PM