The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Babu And 2 Ros on 30 October, 2023

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Babu And 2 Ros on 30 October, 2023

Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL

MISC. APPEAL No. 5 of 2014

BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM, THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT).

AND

1. SMT. VALKIBAI WD/O KUNVARSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WORK R/O BAWADI

2. MINOR SUNIL S/O KUNVARSINGH , AGED
ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY NEXT
FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN VALKIBAI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
2

3. MINOR KARMILA S/O KUNVARSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY NEXT
FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN VALKIBAI

4. MINOR VIRAMBAI D/O KUNVARSINGH , AGED
ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY NEXT
FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARIDAN VALKIBAI

5. MINOR SHANKAR S/O KUNVARSINGH , AGED
ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY NEXT
FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN VALKIBAI

6. VESTA S/O RAKLA , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
CASTE BHILALA

7. JOGDI W/O VESTA , CASTE BHILALA AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS,

(R NO.2 TO 5 ARE MINOR THROUGH MOTHER
R NO.1. ALL R/O GRAM BAWADI, THE. & DIST.
JHABUA (ORIGINAL APPLICANTS)

8. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEHSIL PETLAWAD, DIST. JHABUA

9. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG TEH. & DIST.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
3

JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 6 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB, SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT) .

AND

1. KARU S/O KUKA, CASTE BHIL AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST &
LABOUR R/O AAMBA TEH. AND DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL
APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD, DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
4

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA,
TEHSIL & DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 7 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT) .

AND

1. JANIYA S/O NANSINGH BHABAR BHIL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER R/O CHULIYA
CHOTI TEH. RANAPUR, TEH. AND DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL
APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGE 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O BANBIYA TEH.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
5

PETLAWAD, DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG JHABUA TEHSIL
& DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 8 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. GUMAN AND 02 ORS. S/O SOMLA, CASTE
BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR,
R/O JHUMKA TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
6

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH. &
DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 10 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. SMT. KANTA WD/O KOMALSINGH SOLANKI,
CASTE PATALIA, AGE 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION
SERVICE & AGRICULTURIST, R/O RAMPURA
TEH. RANAPUR, DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
7

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD, DISTRICT JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS ONWER
54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG JHABUA, TEHSIL
AND DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 11 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. MANGUDI W/O BALU CASTE BHIL, AGE 40
YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST &
LABOUR R/O GRAM DHANDALPURA TEH. AND
DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
8

(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH.
& DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 12 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
9

1. MANGU S/O DHULIA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST & LABOUR
R/O AAMBA TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FOROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD, DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG TEH. & DIST.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 13 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
10

1. MANSINGH S/O DHUMSINGH, CASTE BHIL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST AND MISTRI, R/O CHULIYA
CHOTI TEH. & DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, THE. & DIST.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 14 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
11

1. RAMA S/O DHULIA CASTE BHEEL, AGE 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST &
LABOUR R/O AAMBA TEH. AND DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL
APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD, DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG TEH. & DIST.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MISC. APPEAL No. 15 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
12

1. SMT. SAKUBAI WD/O MANSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WORK

2. VIKRAM S/O MANSINGH , CASTE PACHAYA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDY

3. KALUSINGH S/O MANSINGH , AGED ABOUT
23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY

4. KAMLI D/O MANSINGH, CASTE PACHAYA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDY

5. SAMSU S/O MANSINGH, CASTE PACHAYA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDY

6. MINOR SONA D/O MANSINGH , AGED ABOUT
17 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY

7. MINOR REKHA D/O MANSINGH , AGED
ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY

8.
MINOR KALI D/O MANSINGH , AGED ABOUT

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
13

14 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY

9. MINOR PAPPI D/O MANSINGH , AGED ABOUT
13 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY

MINORS R NO. 6 TO 9 THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT.SAKUDIBAI R NO.1.

10. NANIYA S/O VESTA, CASTE PACHAYA AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST

11. DEMA W/O NANIYA PACHAYA, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWORK

ALL R/O JAMBUKUDI, TEHSIL & DIST.
JHABUA (ORIGINAL APPLICANTS)

12. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

13. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH.
& DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
14

LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS).

MISC. APPEAL No. 16 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

1. SMT. KAMLIBAI WD/O RICHIYA, CASTE
BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK

2. MINOR LALLI D/O RICHIYA , AGED ABOUT 10
YEARS, OCCUPATION STUDY, NATURAL
GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SMT.
KAMLIBAI WD/O RICHIYA

3. MINOR IDU S/O RICHIYA, AGED ABOUT 9
YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY NATURAL
GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SMT.
KAMLIBAI WD/O RICHIYA

4. MINOR KAMLABAI D/O RICHIYA , AGED
ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SMT.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
15

KAMLIBAI WD/O RICHIYA

5. THAWARIAYA S/O DEETA BHILALA , AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS,

6. MANGIBAI W/O THAWARIYA BHILALA, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS,

(R.NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINOR THROUGH MOTHER
R NO.1)

ALL R/O GRAM AAMBA TEHSIL & DIST.
JHABUA (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

7. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

8. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG JHABUA TEH. &
DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS).

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
16

MISC. APPEAL No. 17 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. SMT. PAGALIBAI WD/O AALU BHEEL, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WORK R/O CHAPARIJVAS DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PUNASINGH S/O AALU , AGED ABOUT 19
YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDY R/O
CHAPARIJVAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. KU. KANTA D/O AALU, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDY R/O CHAPARIJVAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BHAV SINGH S/O AALU AGED ABOUT 12
YEARS, OCCUPATION STUDY

5.
NAVISNGH S/O AALU, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
17

OCCUPATION: STUDY

R. NO.3,4,5 ARE MINOR THROUGH NEXT
FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT.PAGALIBAI WD/O AALU

ALL R/O GRAM CHAPRI RAJVAS THE. & DIST.
JHABUA (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

6. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

7. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 18 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
18

THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. ALAPSINGH S/O BHUWANSINGH VASKALA,
CASTE BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST AND MISTRI
R/O BAWADI TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH.
& DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 19 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
19

THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. SENA S/O DHULIYA CASTE BHEEL, AGE 60
YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST &
LABOUR R/O CHHAPRI TEH. AND DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER BANBIYA,
TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH. &
DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 20 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
20

AND

1. SMT. LEELABAI WD/O JAGAN GADRIYA
BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSE WORK

2. KU. SENA D/O JAGAN, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,

3. KU. ANITA D/O JAGAN, AGED ABOUT 7
MONTHS,

(R.NO.2/3 MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND MOTHER
SMT.LEELABAI WD/O JAGAN)

4. BHAVLA S/O TIKALIYA, CASTE GADARIYA
BHILALA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

5. SMT. MANGATI W/O BHAVLA, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWORK

ALL ABOVE R/O GRAM REHANDA, TEHSIL &
DIST. JHABUA

6. FIROZ KHJAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
21

7. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGE 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION BUS OWNER, R/O 54,
KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEHSIL &
DIST. JHABUA

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 21 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

AND

1. PARSINGH S/O VESIYA, CASTE BHILALA AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O
AAMAPADA TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER BANBIYA,
TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
22

PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 22 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

AND

1. RATAN SINGH S/O VESTA, CASTE BHILALA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST AND SUTARI R/O BAWADI
TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
23

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH.
& DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 23 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. RAMESH S/O PANIYA, CASTE BHEEL AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST & LABOUR R/O CHHAPRI
TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
24

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS\\ OWNER
54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG TEH. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 24 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

AND

1. BHANWAR SINGH S/O NAHARSINGH BHABOR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NARVALI TEH.
AND DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
25

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH. &
DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 25 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

1. CHAGAN AND ORS. S/O KHUMSINGH, CASTE
BHEEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST & LABOUR
R/O BAKHATPURA TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
26

(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54,KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEHSIL
& DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 26 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115,
STATION ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH
NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
27

THE APPELLANT)

AND

1. KARAM SINGH S/O VESTA, CASTE BHILALA AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST &
SUTARI R/O BAWADI TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGE 35 YEARS
OCCUPATION DRIVER R/O BANBIYA, TEHSIL
PETLAWAD, DISTRICT JHABUA

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGE 40
YEARS, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEHSIL &
DISTRICT JHABUA

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 27 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
28

1. BABU S/O MALU, CASTE BHEEL AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST &
LABOUR R/O CHHAPRI TEH. AND DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG,JHABUA, TEHSIL
AND DIST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 28 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)
AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
29

1. TOLIYA S/O PUNIYA, CASTE BHILALA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O
DHAMOI TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)(ORIGINAL
APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD, DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3.R/O PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUS OWNER 54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG
TEH. & DIST. JHAUBA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 29 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
30

AND

1. KERU S/O NANSINGH BHILALA KAVCHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O JHMUKA TEH. AND
DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH.
& DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 30 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
31

AND

1. NARSINGH S/O SENA, CASTE BHEEL AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURIST & LABOUR R/O CHHAPRI
TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHAUBA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54,KAMLA NEHRU MARG JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MISC. APPEAL No. 32 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
32

AND

1. BALA S/O KHUNJI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST AND MISTRI
R/O CHULIYA CHOTI TEH. RANAPUR TEH.
AND DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD DISTRICT JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54 KAMLA NEHRU MARG JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MISC. APPEAL No. 33 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DADNWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
33

AND

1. HUKMA S/O ANASINGH DAMOR BHEEL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS,

2. KASRI W/O HUKMA DAMOR, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS,

3. SAVITA WD/O LATE SITU@CHHITU DAMOR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OF
ALL ABOVE AGRICULTURIST R/O CHULIYA
CHOTTI, DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. MINOR KU. LEELA D/O CHHITU @ SITU, AGED
ABOUT 4 YEARS,

5. MINOR KU. MANISHA D/O CHHITU @ SITU,
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,

6. RANMALSINGH S/O LATE CHHITU @ SITU,
AGED ABOUT 7 MONTHS,

MINORS FROM 4 TO 6 THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT.SAVITA WD/O SITU R/O
CHULIYA CHOTTI, DIST. JHABUA (ORIGINAL
APPLICANTS)

7. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
34

BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

8. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH.
& DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

CIVIL REVISION No. 3 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)

AND

1. PEDU S/O SHRI MAKDIYA MAVI BHEEL, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST AND SILAVATI R/O CHHAPRI
TEHSIL AND DIS. JHABUA (MADHYA

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
35

PRADESH)(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEH &
DIS. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 4 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. MUNNA S/O MADIYA BHIL, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND
LABOUR R/O LEEMKHODRA TEHSIL AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
36

DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROJ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA,TEHSIL-PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54,KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEHSIL
&DISTRICT JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 5 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
37

1. ABHAY SINGH S/O ANASINGH MEDA, CASTE
BHEEL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O AMBA
SALARPADA TEH. AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEHSIL-PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 6 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
38

AND

1. JAMSINGH S/O SHRI JHITARIYA DEVDA BHIL,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O NAHAR KHODRA TEHSIL
AND DISST. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEH & DIS.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 7 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
39

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. JALAMSINGH S/O KERU JAMRA BHILALA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST & LABOUR R/O
SEMALKEHDI. P.S. BORI, TEHSIL AND DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL
APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 8 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
40

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. TOLSINGH S/O SHRI BHUCHA, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND
LABOUR R/O GHAWALIYA TEHSIL AND DIST.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL
APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEH. PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN AGE 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER R/O 54
KAMLA NEHRU MARG (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 9 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
41

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. MITHIYA S/O DALIYA, CASTE PATLIYA, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O GRAM
CHUEE, TEHSIL AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 11 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
42

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. RATAN S/O SHRI KIDIYA BHEEL, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
AND LABOUR R/O AMABA, SALARPADA,
TEHSIL AND DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEH &
DIS. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 12 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
43

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. KUKA S/O SHRI JAWLA BHEEL, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
AND LABOUR R/O HIDI CHOTTI, TEHSIL AND
DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 13 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
44

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)

AND

1. PEDU S/O SHRI SAKRU SINGAD, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST/SUTARI R/O BAWADI,
TEHSIL AND DISS. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS DRIVER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
TEHSIL &DISTRICT JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 14 of 2014

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
45

BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)

AND

1. CHANDU S/O SHRI VASNA BARIYA, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O BAWADI
TEHSIL AND DISSTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEH-PETLAWAD, DISTT-JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA, TEH.
& DISTT-JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 15 of 2014

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
46

BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. VESTA S/O SHRI NANKA BHILALA, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O GRAM
DOLATPURA TEHSIL AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEH &
DIS. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 16 of 2014

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
47

BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. KUKJI S/O SHRI MEETHU MAVI BHEEL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST/SUTARI R/O CHHAPRI
TEHSIL AND DISTT. JHAUBA (MADHYA
PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

CIVIL REVISION No. 17 of 2014

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
48

BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. BABU S/O SHRI SOMLA CASTE BAMNIYA
PATLIYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR
R/O GRAM HIDI CHOTTI TEHSIL AND DISTT.
JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL
APPLICANT)

2. FIROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA TEHSIL PETLAWAD DISTRICT
JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA
TEHSIL & DISTRICT JHABUA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
49

CIVIL REVISION No. 18 of 2014
BETWEEN:-

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 115, STATION
ROAD RATLAM THR. TP HUB SNEH NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER)
AND

1. MOONSINGH S/O SHRI KAZIYA VAKHALA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O
LEEMKHODRA TEHSIL AND DISTT. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (ORIGINAL APPLICANT)

2. FIZROZ KHAN S/O ABDUL KHAN, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
BANBIYA, TEHSIL PETLAWAD DIST. JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRADEEP JAIN S/O SUJANMAL JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OWNER
R/O 54, KAMLA NEHRU MARG, JHABUA TEH &
DIS. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.MINI RAVINDRAN AND SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/30/2023
5:37:51 PM
50

..............................................................................
Reserved on : 11.10.2023.
Pronounced on : 30.10.2023.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These miscellaneous appeals/civil revisions having been heard
and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day,
Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal pronounced the following:

ORDER

This common order shall govern disposal of MA No.05/2014, MA No.06/2014, MA No.07/2014, MA No.08/2014, MA No.10/2014, MA No.11/2014, MA No.12/2014, MA No.13/2014, MA No.14/2014, MA No.15/2014, MA No.16/2014, MA no.17/2014, MA No.18/2014, MA No.19/2014, MA No.20/2014, MA No.21/2014, MA No.22/2014, MA No.23/2014, MA No.24/2014, MA No.25/2014, MA No.26/2014, MA No.27/2014, MA No.28/2014, MA No.29/2014, MA No.30/2014, MA No.32/2014, MA No.33/2014, CR No.03/2014, CR No.04/2014, CR No.05/2014, CR No.06/2014, CR No.07/2014, CR No.08/2014, CR No.09/2014, CR No.11/2014, CR No.12/2014, CR No.13/2014, CR No.14/2014, CR No.15/2015, CR No.16/2014, CR No.17/2014, CR No.18/2014 arising out of award dated 13.09.2013 passed in Claim Case No.81/2007 & other connected 43 cases whereby learned Claims Tribunal has held appellant insurance company liable to pay the compensation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 51

2. Short question involved in all these matters is whether at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being plied, in breach of terms & conditions of insurance policy, on a route different fro m that mentioned in the permit and therefore, appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In this connection, primary defence of appellant/insurance company is absence/lack of pleadings in the written statement filed by owner of offending vehicle in relation to documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by owner of offending vehicle to prove the fact that on account of obstruction on permit route, offending vehicle was being plied on a different route.

BRIEF HISTORY/FACTS OF THE CASE:-

3. Brief facts of the case are that claim pétitions pertaining to above miscellaneous appeals/civil revisions were initially disposed of by Member Claims, Tribunal, Jhabua, vide common award dated 27.11.2007 and claims Tribunal held that at the time of accident, offending bus was being driven in violation of terms of insurance policy and on different route, from that mentioned in the permit and exonerated the insurance company from liability to pay the compensation but at the same time Tribunal applied the principle of pay and recover, i.e. firstly, insurance company (appellant/NA-3) would pay the compensation to Claimants but insurance company would be entitled to recover the same from owner of offending vehicle. Against this, owner of offending vehicle Pradeep preferred miscellaneous appeal No. 757/2008 and this appeal was dismissed Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 52 vide order dated 19.03.2009. Against this, owner of offending vehicle filed a review petition No. 147/2009 and this review petition was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2010 and application filed by owner of offending vehicle under Order 47 Rule 27 of CPC was allowed and matter was remanded back to the claims Tribunal with following directions:-

"6. From perusal of the impugned judgment undisputedly it can be said that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was not disposed of while the impugned order was passed. Since certain documents has been filed by the petitioner along with the application and the same may be relevant for determination of the liability between petitioner and respondent No.3 and the petitioner has undertaken to deposit the entire amount of award and has also deposited part of the amount, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by this Court is recalled and the application filed by t he petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed and the case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to redecide the claim petition so far as it relates to liability of respondent No.3 is concerned subject to depositing the entire amount of award along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Since respondent No.3 has already deposited the awarded amount with interest which must have been paid by now to the claimants, therefore, petitioner is directed to pay the interest on the awarded amount deposited by the respondent No.3 on the same rate. The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the order and the learned Tribunal shall after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence redecide the claim petition so far as it relates to liability of respondent No.3. Since the claim petitions are 44 in numbers, therefore, instead of remanding all the cases only that case in which the evidence was recorded is remanded by making it clear that the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the liability of petitioner viz a vi z respondent No.3 shall govern all the cases so far as liability is concern. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 17.01.2011."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 53

4. Learned claims Tribunal in compliance of above order passed in R.P. No.147/2009, afforded opportunity to owner of offending vehicle and insurance company to lead the evidence and thereafter passed impugned award dated 13.09.2013 and held that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being plied on changed route on account of route mentioned in permit being obstructed. Therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was being driven without permit and held that insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Against this order, appellant insurance company has preferred instant appeals/revisions.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/INSURANCE COMPANY:-

5. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has submitted that insurance company has challenged impugned award dated 13.09.2013 solely on the ground that offending bus was being plied on a route different from that mentioned in the permit which is breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is correct that this court vide order dated 23.10.2010 passed in RP No.147/2009 allowed application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC by respondent/owner and thereby took on record documents filed along with the application. Respondent/owner filed these documents to show that on the date of accident there was obstruction on the route for which petitioner/owner was having permit and on account of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 54 same, driver of offending vehicle was compelled to take different route, other than that mentioned in the permit.

6. The primary contention of learned counsel for appellant insurance company is that there are no averments/pleadings in the written statement filed by owner/driver of offending vehicle to the effect that on the date of accident, on account of some truck being stuck on the road/culvert, there was obstruction on the route for which owner of offending vehicle was having permit and on account of same, driver of offending vehicle was compelled to take different route, other than that mentioned in the permit. Hence, relying upon Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College, A.I.R 1987 SC 1242, it is submitted that in absence/lack of pleadings, evidence relating thereto cannot be looked into/taken into consideration. Therefore, learned Tribunal has committed mistake/illegality in taking into consideration the documents, without there being any corresponding pleadings in written statement. This court vide order dated 23.10.2010, passed in RP No.147/2009, only granted opportunity to lead evidence and therein, no directions with respect to pleadings were given. It is also urged that on behalf of respondent/owner, during cross-examination of applicant witnesses, no such suggestion has been given to any of the applicant witnesses that on account of obstruction on the road, driver of offending vehicle took alternate route.

7. Learned counsel for appellant/insurance company has also submitted that till today, driver/owner of offending vehicle has not amended written statement so as to incorporate pleadings relating to Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 55 above defence. Further, learned tribunal has not given any findings with respect to lack of pleadings in relation to above defence. If owner of offending vehicle was having above documents with him since 2006, then, why they were not filed earlier and why, no pleadings with respect to them were incorporated in the written statement and no explanation with respect to same has been furnished on behalf of owner of offending vehicle. Documents filed by respondent/owner of offending vehicle are suspicious. After referring to evidence, both oral as well as documentary evidence, adduced by both the parties, it is also contended that from evidence on record, it is not proved at all that on the date of accident, prescribed route, as mentioned in the permit, was obstructed, therefore, alternate route was taken. On above grounds, it is submitted that appeal be allowed and impugned award be set aside.

                           SUBMISSIONS           OF      LEARNED          COUNSEL          FOR
                           RESPONDENT/OWNER:-

8. Learned counsel for respondent/owner of offending vehicle submits that on account of vehicle/truck being stuck on the road/culvert, route mentioned in the permit was obstructed, therefore, alternate route was taken, as there were passengers in the bus. In written statement, there is a specific pleading that offending vehicle was not being driven in violation of any terms and conditions of insurance policy. As per remand order dated 23.10.2010, evidence was led in relation to documents which were taken on record by this court vide order dated 23.10.2010. Therefore, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 56 in reference to remand order, absence of pleadings is immaterial, as in the remand order, the only direction was to adduce evidence, and there is no mention with respect to pleadings to be made/to be incorporated in relation to documents which were taken on record by this court. Learned Tribunal, in compliance of remand order, duly recorded evidence, with respect to documents. Learned counsel, after extensively referring to evidence of both the parties, has submitted that from evidence on record, it is clearly established that on the date of accident permit route was obstructed, therefore, alternate route was taken. Investigator appointed by insurance company recorded statements of some persons, but insurance company has not examined those persons in the court. Burden to prove breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy is on the insurance company. On above grounds, it is urged that present appeals/revisions be dismissed and impugned award be affirmed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case minutely.

FINDINGS:-

10. Perusal of subissions made by learned counsel for appellant/insurance company and grounds taken in the appeal memo reveal that appellant has challenged impugned award primarily on two grounds. Firstly that, in absence of relevant pleadings, evidence relating thereto cannot be taken into consideration and secondly that, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 57 from evidence on record, it is not proved that on the date of accident, permit route was obstructed, therefore, alternate route was taken.

EFFECT AND IMPACT OF LACK OF PLEADINGS:-

11. So far as effect and impact of lack/absence of pleadings is concerned, it is correct that there are no specific pleading in the written statement filed by owner of offending vehicle that on account of obstruction on permit route, offending vehicle was being plied on alternate route. Only it is pleaded in the written statement that offending vehicle was being plied as per terms and conditions of insurance policy and there is no breach of any terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is also evident from impugned award that learned Claims Tribunal has fastened liability on insurance company on the basis of documents filed by owner of offending vehicle during appeal and taken on record by this court vide order dated 23.10.2010 and oral evidence adduced relating thereto.

12. Hence, before analyzing the effect/impact of absence/lack of pleadings in the written statement filed by owner of offending vehicle on the merits of the case/on liability of appellant insurance company to pay the compensation, it would be appropriate to determine nature of proceedings initiated under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

13. Evidently, present case relates to award of compensation on account of motor vehicle accident and petition for compensation has Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 58 been filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act"). Therefore, it would be appropriate to discuss nature of proceedings and law relating thereto. As per the Act, an application for compensation can be made under section 166 (1) of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 166 of the Act also provides that the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accident forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under the Act. Thus, under the Act, to claim compensation, even no formal application is required at all.

14. Further, Rule 220 to 242 Of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, (hereinafter referred as "Rules") laid down procedure to be followed by claims Tribunal while dealing with an application for compensation in relation to motor vehicle accident. Further, Rule 220(1) of Rules states that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified under the Act shall be in form M.P.V.R.-75 (COMP-A). Rule 225 (3) of Rules states that the opposite party may on or before the first hearing or within such time as the Claims Tribunal may permit, file a written statement dealing with the claim raised in the application along with the document on which it relies and any such written statement and such documents shall form part of the record.

15. Further, Rule 240 of Rules specify the provisions of CPC, which are applicable to proceedings before Claims Tribunal and it reads as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 59

"240. Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries-

Applications of certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these rules, the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) namely, those contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20, Order IX, Order XVIII, Rule 3 to 10, Order XVI, Rule 2 to 21, Order XVII, Order XXI and Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3 shall apply to proceedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far as they may be applicable thereto."

16. Thus, perusal of Rule 240 of rules as above, shows that therein provisions relating to pleadings, as mentioned in the CPC (Order 6 and 8 of CPC) are not specifically mentioned. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gaura Singh Nishad, 2008 (3) MPHT 54 (CG), it is held that :-

"6. Rule 240 of the M.P (C.G) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provides for procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries. It provides for application of certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in express words it says that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these rules, the following provisions of the First Schedule to be Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) namely, t hose contained in Order V Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20, Order IX, Order XVIII Rules 3 to 10, Order XVI Rules 2 to 21, Order XVII, Order XXI and Order XXII Rules 1 to 3 shall apply to proceedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far as they may be applicable thereto.

7. A bare reading of these provisions would show that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 or Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC have not been made applicable by these rules to the proceedings to be drawn by the Claims Tribunal while holding the enquiries. ......."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 60

17. Further, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company, (2018) 13 SCC 516&M.R. Krishna Murthi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & others, (2020) 15 SCC 493, as per modified claims Tribunal agreed procedure, approved by Hon'ble apex court, claims Tribunal shall treat Detailed Accident Report (DAR) as claims petition under section 166 (4) of the Act. Thus, it is apparent that for claiming compensation under section 166 Motor Vehicle Act, no formal application is required and tribunal can treat detailed accident report as application for compensation.

18. With respect to nature of claim proceedings, law has been succinctly laid down by a three Judges bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta & others, 2011 ACJ 2729, as under:-

"Nature of a claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

5. A claim petition for compe nsation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the depende nt family me mbers) before the Motor Accide nt Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:

(i) A proceedings for award of compe nsation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compe nsation Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 61 made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compe nsation under section 166 (4) of the Act.

(ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo moto initiated by the Tribunal.

(iii)......................................

(iv) The words `receipt of an application for compensation' in section 168 refer not only to an application filed by the claimants claiming compensation but also to a suo motu registration of an application for compensation under section 166(4) of the Act on the basis of a report of an accident under section 158(6) of the Act.

(v) Though the tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compe nsation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).

(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 62

(vii)...................................................

(viii)..................................................

We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Claims Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due inquiry, in accordance with the statute."

19. Thus, from legal provisions & law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred in the preceding paras, law relating to nature of claim proceedings can be summarized as under:-

(i) A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is not a suit in the traditional sense.

(ii) Above proceedings are regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself.

(iii) Rules of pleadings do not strictly apply to the proceedings.

(iv) Rule 240 of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, specifically mentions provisions of CPC which are applicable to the claim proceedings, but therein Order 6 and 8 of CPC, which are provisions relating to pleadings, are not mentioned, i.e. Order 6 & 8 of CPC have not been specifically made applicable to claims proceedings.

(v) Claims Tribunal only holds an enquiry into the claim and makes an award determining compensation which appears to it be just.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 63

(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

20. Hence, in view of above legal position, principles laid down in Ram Sarup (supra) are not applicable to the facts of present case.

21. Hence, in view of above established/settled legal position, in this court's considered opinion, evidence adduced by respondent/owner of offending vehicle, cannot be discarded simply on the ground, that there are no corresponding specific pleadings/absence/lack of pleadings in the reply/written statement filed by respondent/owner of offending vehicle.

22. With respect to above, this court would also like to refer para 6 of this Court's order dated 23.10.2010 passed in R. P. No. 147/2009 (Pradeep Vs. Man Singh), whereby this Court has taken on record the documents filed by owner of offending vehicle and remanded back the case to the Tribunal to re-decide the claim petition so far as it relates to liability of respondent No.3. It has to be kept in mind that, when this court passed above order and took the documents on record filed by owner of the offending vehicle, there were no pleadings about above documents/facts mentioned in above documents in the written statement filed by owner of offending vehicle. Further, this court did not either give any instructions to owner of the offending vehicle to suitably amend written statement so as to incorporate necessary pleadings/facts relating to the documents taken on record vide above order. In view of above also, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 64 owner of offending vehicle was not obliged/was not under any obligation to suitably amend his written statement with respect to documents taken on record by this court. On above ground also, evidence adduced by the owner in relation to above documents taken on record cannot be discarded

23. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned claims Tribunal has committed any illegality or has acted contrary to law in taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the respondent/owner of offending vehicle without there being any specific pleadings about the same in the written statement filed by respondent/owner.

BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE BREACH OF TERMS & CONDITIONS OF INSURANCE POLICY:-

24. It is well established that it is insurance company that has to establish/prove breach/violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and not the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & others, 2004 ACJ 1 (three judge bench) has in para 102 (iii) held that the breach of policy conditions, e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid, driving license of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer..........

25. Further, it is averments of appellant/Insurance Company that at the time of accident, offending bus was being driven in breach of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 65 terms and conditions of the insurance policy, i.e. on a route different from that mentioned in the permit. Hence, this fact has to be proved by the Insurance Company itself. In this connection, provision contained in section 66 (3) (m) of the Act has also to be kept in mind which mandates that if, at the time of accident, on account of obstruction on the permit route, a vehicle is being plied on a different route, then, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being plied without any permit.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE:-

26. Now question arises as to whether from evidence on record, it is proved that at the time of accident, offending bus was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on a route different from that mentioned in the permit. In this court's opinion, above fact has to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties while also keeping in mind defence of owner of offending vehicle along with section 66 (3) (m) of the Act & legal position relating to burden of proof with respect to breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy & nature of present proceedings.

27. Perusal of record of the Tribunal reveals that owner of offending vehicle has filed documents Ex.D/1 to D/10 and has examined witnesses Mahendra Kumar, Dhanraj, Vishnubai, Pradeep Jain, Sadaram, Firoz Khan whereas appellant/insurance company has filed documents Ex.DA/1 to DA/38 and has examined Madanlal Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 66 Soni, Satyanarayan, Banshilal, A.S.Chouhan, S.D.Mule to prove the documents.

28. I have gone through the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the parties and examined the same minutely and critically. Perusal of impugned award reveal that learned Tribunal has extensively referred all the evidence adduced by both the parties & has examined the same in detail. Therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce each & every piece of evidence adduced by the parties separately.

29. Ex.D/1 is an order passed by the appellate authority/Transport Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh in Appeal No.7/10 on 28.11.2010. Vide above order, appellate authority/Transport Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by owner on the ground that evidence/documents filed by owner clearly establish that on 04.06.2006 (date of present accident), on account of obstruction on the route mentioned in the permit, bus was being plied on different route, therefore, it cannot be said that bus was being plied without permit. It is also notable that documents relied upon by the appellate authority/Transport Commissioner are the same one that have been filed /relied upon by the owner in the instant case.

30. It is evident from submissions of both the parties as well as record of the case that the above order (Ex.D/1) has not been challenged anywhere by the appellant/Insurance Company etc., hence, it has attained finality. Perusal of impugned award reveals Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 67 that learned Tribunal has also relied upon the same documents which are relied upon by the appellate authority/Transport Commissioner.

31. Further, documents Ex.D/5, D/6, D/9, D/10, Ex.DA/3. Ex.DA/16 and witnesses examined by owner Mahendra Kumar, Dhanraj, Vishnubai, Pradeep Jain, Sadara, Firoz Khan as well as Satyanarayan, Panchayat Secretary, a witness examined by the Insurance Company, clearly establish the defence taken by owner of offending vehicle that on the date of accident, there was obstruction on the route mentioned in the permit, that's why offending vehicle was being plied on different route.

32. Perusal of documents filed by appellant/Insurance Company reveals that Ex.DA/2, Ex.DA/5 to DA/12, Ex.DA/22 to 27 and Ex.DA/29 to 37 are photographs. However, there is no evidence on record to show/establish that above photographs were taken on the date of accident i.e. 04.06.2006 and do not establish actual position of date of incident. Therefore, they do not help appellant/Insurance Company in any way.

33. So far as witnesses examined on behalf of appellant insurance company are concerned, DW Madan Lal Soni is an investigator, appointed by the appellant insurance company & he has just investigated the matter on behalf of appellant insurance company himself. DW Stayanarayan is Panchayat secretary but in view of his statement in his cross-examination, especially with respect to Ex.D-6 & Ex.D-16, his testimony does not prove that on the date of accident Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 68 there was no obstruction on permit route. DW Banshilal is a salesman in the nearby society and he has deposed that on 04.06.2006, Jhabua-Ratlam road was not blocked & it is apparent from his testimony that he has told above fact for the first time in the year 2011 to investigator Madan Lal Soni ,i.e., after 5 years of incident. But in cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he cannot tell as to how many times in the year 2006/2007, above road was blocked.

34. So far as depositions of DW Ajan Singh Chouhan (constable) & S. D. Muley (Inspector) are concerned, these witnesses have deposed only with regard to information alleged to have been given by the conductor of the offending bus to the Thana.

35. Otherwise also, I have gone through the documents filed by appellant/Insurance Company as well as depositions of witnesses examined by appellant/Insurance Company. In the considered opinion of this Court, above evidence does not establish/prove that on the date of accident, there was no obstruction on the route mentioned in the permit.

36. It has also to be kept in kind that these cases relate to compensation with respect to accident involving motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, the case has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability and the burden to prove breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy is on the insurance company & insurance company has to prove breach of terms & Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 69 conditions of insurance policy by leading cogent and reliable evidence. In this court's considered opinion, appellant/insurance company has failed to prove breach of terms & conditions of insurance policy by leading cogent and reliable evidence.

37. Further, perusal of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal reveals that learned Tribunal has extensively referred and discussed whole evidence adduced by the parties and has critically and properly examined and assessed the same and the findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned award. Further, there is nothing to show that learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration any evidence on record or has taken into consideration any evidence which should not have been taken into consideration.

38. It is correct that till today, owner of offending vehicle has not amended his written statement so as to incorporate necessary facts relating to above defence in the written statement. It is also true that owner of offending vehicle did not produce above documents at the first instance. It is also correct that when Tribunal initially recorded evidence, owner of offending vehicle did not take defence that on account of obstruction on permit route, different route was taken & no such suggestion was given to the witnesses. But in this court's opinion, in view of this court's order dated 23.10.2010 passed in R.P. No. 147/2009 and discussion in the foregoing paras and conclusions drawn therein, on the basis of above, it cannot be concluded that on the date of accident, there was no obstruction on Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 70 the route mentioned in the permit. In view of para 9 of impugned award, it cannot be said that learned Tribunal has not discussed the issue of absence of pleadings.

CONCLUSIONS:-

39. Thus, in this court's opinion, from evidence on record it is proved/clearly established that on the date of accident, there was obstruction on the road/route mentioned in the permit & on account of same, offending bus was being plied on the route not mentioned in the permit. Therefore, it cannot be said/it is not established that on the date of accident, offending bus was being plied in violation of terms & conditions of insurance policy.

40. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has recorded the findings correctly and there is no illegality in the said findings. It is also apparent from the impugned award that learned Tribunal has dealt with all the objections/submissions raised by appellant/Insurance Company in the impugned award.

41. In view of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and analysis of evidence/facts of the case, including legal position as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, in the considered opinion of this Court, no grounds are made out to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeals as well as revisions being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby affirmed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM 71

42. Let a copy of this order be retained in the file of all connected cases.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 10/30/2023 5:37:51 PM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court