Madhya Pradesh High Court
Antram vs Laxman Prasad Sharma on 4 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 4th AUGUST, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1423 of 2011
VINOD
Versus
LAXMAN PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 1424 of 2011
JABBOSYA
Versus
LAXMAN PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1426 of 2011
BACHCHU
Versus
LAXMAN PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1427 of 2011
ANTRAM
Versus
LAXMAN PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
&
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
2
MISC. APPEAL No. 1428 of 2011
VAHEED
Versus
LAXMAN PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1668 of 2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
MORENA
Versus
VINOD
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1669 of 2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,ITS BRANCH
OFFICE,MORENA
Versus
JABBOSHYA AND OTHERS
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1670 of 2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,ITS BRANCH
OFFICE,MORENA
Versus
BAHID AND OTHERS
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1671 of 2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,ITS BRANCH
OFFICE,MORENA
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
3
ANANTRAM AND OTHERS
&
MISC. APPEAL No. 1672 of 2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,ITS BRANCH
OFFICE,MORENA
Versus
BACHCHOO KOLI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Sharma- Advocate for appellants in MA.No.1423/2011,
MA.No.1424/2011, MA.No.1426/2011, MA.No.1427/2011, MA.No.1428/2011.
Ms. Meena Singhal - Advocate for respondent No.1 in MA.No.1423/2011,
MA.No.1424/2011, MA.No.1426/2011, MA.No.1427/2011, MA.No.1428/2011.
Shri R.V.Sharma- Advocate for respondent in MA.No.1423/2011,
MA.No.1424/2011, MA.No.1426/2011, MA.No.1427/2011, MA.No.1428/2011.
Shri R.V. Sharma- Advocate for appellant/Insurance Company in
M.A.No.1668/2011, M.A.No.1669/2011, M.A.No.1670/2011, M.A.No.1671/2011
and M.A.No.1672/2011.
Ms. Meena Singhal- Advocate for respondents in M.A.No.1668/2011,
M.A.No.1669/2011, M.A.No.1670/2011, M.A.No.1671/2011 and
M.A.No.1672/2011.
ORDER
The Misc. Appeals No.1423 of 2011, Appeal No.1424 of 2011,
Appeal No.1426 of 2011, Appeal No.1427 of 2011 and Appeal No.1428
of 2011 under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by
Claimants against the award dated 22.03.2011 passed by Fourth
Additional, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena [hereinafter it shall
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
4
be referred to as ”the Claims Tribunal”] in Claim Cases No.620/2009,
622/2009, 44/2010, 22/2010 and 18/2010 respectively on account of
inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
Misc. Appeals No.1668 of 2011, Appeal No.1669/2011, Appeal
No.1670/2011, Appeal No.1671/2011 and Appeal No.1672/2011 under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by Insurance Company
against the common award dated 22.03.2011 passed by Fourth
Additional, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Cases
No.620/2009, 622/2009, 18/2010, 22/2010 and 44/2010 respectively on
account of exoneration from liability, therefore, they are heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order. Vide impugned award,
learned claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- in
claim case No.620/2009, Rs.30,000/- in claim case No.622/2009,
Rs.32,000/- in claim Case No.18/2010, Rs.35,000/- in Claim Case
No.22/2010 and Rs.25,000/- in Claim Case No.44/2010 along with
interest from filing of the claim petition till its realization in favour of the
claimants.
3. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in
dispute and the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard
are not in question.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company (in Misc. Appeals
No.1668 of 2011, Appeal No.1669/2011, Appeal No.1670/2011, Appeal
No.1671/2011 and Appeal No.1672/2011) submitted that Claims Tribunal
has committed grave error in imposing liability on Insurance Company. It
is submitted that claimants/injured are neither the owner of musical
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
5
instruments nor authorized agents of the said articles. They are only
gratuitous passengers. It is further contended that Claims Tribunal has not
considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence minutely at the
time of passing of impugned award in favour of claimants. Therefore, the
findings given by Claims Tribunal is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and
against the law. It is further contended that insured vehicle is a goods
carrying vehicle and it was insured for carrying goods only, but according
to the FIR, pleadings of the claimants and the statements of their
witnesses, claimants with other nine persons were sitting in the alleged
offending vehicle at the time of accident. This fact was being proved by
Insurance Company by producing cogent evidence and Insurance
Company has produced Investigating Officer as DW-2, but Tribunal has
wrongly disbelieved the evidence of such witness. Claimants had given
their statements before the Claims Tribunal and admitted that it is true
that said Metador was taken by Mr. Rafiq Shah on rent for the purpose of
sending band party to play the band in marriage. It is an admitted fact that
the claimants are not the owners of the goods/instruments, but the owner
is Rafiq and he is also not the agent of the above said goods/instruments
and claimants were not sitting in the matador for the purpose of safety of
goods/instruments, but they have only went to play band and musical
instruments in the marriage. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal
has committed grave error in fastening liability on Insurance Company
although the Insurance Company has proved its pleadings by way of
documentary evidence. Insurance Company has not taken any premium
for gratuitous passengers in insurance policy, but premium of insurance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
6
has been paid for two employees who are Driver and Cleaner and
claimants are neither owners nor agents of the musical instruments,
therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and
prayed for setting aside the impugned award passed by Claims Tribunal
by exonerating him from liability.
5. In support of submissions, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has relied upon the judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court in M.A.No.1701/2010 (Kailash Narayan Kushwah Vs.
Ramprasad Kushwah and Others), in which it was held that
respondents/injured are not driving as an agent of the goods, so they are
gratuitous passengers and Insurance Company was exonerating from the
liability. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Rattani and Others reported in 2009 (3) MPLJ (Civil Appeal
No.7399/2008 decided on 18.12.2008) in which, it was held that first
information report of motor accident made a part of the claim petition and
it can be looked into for the purpose of arriving at a finding in regard to
the question raised by the appellant that the deceased and the injured were
members of a marriage party and could not have travelled in a goods
vehicle as representatives of the owner of the goods and it was also held
that facts admitted in claim petition need not be proved.
6. Further, learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the
judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in M.A.No.976/2011
dated 10.11.2022 (Smt. Guddi and Others Vs. Pooran Singh Yadav and
Others) wherein it was held that when deceased/injured was travelling in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
7
vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, then Insurance Company has no
liability. Similarly, In the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Smt.
Mamta and Others passed in M.A.No.558/2007 decided on 07.08.2009
wherein it was held that if injured was travelling as a passenger in goods
vehicle, then it is a breach of policy and Insurance Company could not be
directed to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from
the owner and driver of the vehicle. Further, in support of contention,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on catena of
decisions viz National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and
Another 2013 1 SCC 731, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Mahila Javitri Devi and Others 2004 (1) T.A.C. 295 (M.P), National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu MACD 2010 (1) (Raj.) 131
M.A.No.113 of 2005 (Mamta Pandey Vs. Kallu Musalman and Others)
order dated 31.10.2022, M.A.No.786/2008 (Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Smt.
Anju and Others) order dated 03.07.2025.
7. On the other hand, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Honnamma SLP (Civil) No.2135/2023 order dated 05.05.2025,
learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award and
submitted that claimants are not gratuitous passengers and they were
travelling as authorized agents of the owner of the musical instruments.
Hence, prayed for rejection of appeals filed by Insurance Company.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. On perusal of the record, it is undisputed fact that the claimants
were travelling in the offending vehicle i.e. matador on the alleged date of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
8
incident. Now, the moot question comes before this Court as to whether
the claimants were travelling in the alleged offending vehicle as
gratuitous passengers or they were authorized agents/owners of the goods
or not?
10. For the sake of convenience, Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor
Vehicles Act is reproduced as under :-
“147. Requirements of policies and limits of
liability.–(1) In order to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance
must be a policy which–
(a) ……….xx……….
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified
in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section
(2) —
(i) against any liability which may be
incurred by him in respect of the death of
or bodily injury to any person, including
owner of the goods or his authorized
representative carried in the motor
vehicle or damage to any property of a
third party caused by or arising out of the
use of the motor vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury
to any passenger of a transport vehicle,
except gratuitous pasengers of a goods
vehicle, caused by or arising out of the
use of the motor vehicle in a public
place.
Explanation.–For the removal of doubts, it is
hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to
any person or damage to any property of a third
party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to
have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public
place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
9
or injured or the property which is damaged was not
in a public place at the time of the accident, if the
act or omission which led to the accident occurred
in a public place.”
11. Considering the FIR (Ex.P-2), it is clear that the insured alleged
vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle and the claimants (total five persons in
M.A.Nos.1423/2011, 1424/2011, 1426/2011, 1427/2011 and 1428/2011)
with other persons were sitting in the offending vehicle at the time of
alleged accident. According to the pleadings of claimants/injured, they
were travelling in the offending vehicle with musical instruments for the
purpose of playing band in marriage party. In their evidence, they pleaded
that they were travelling in the offending vehicle as authorized agents of
owners of musical instruments.
12. Injured witness- claimant Jabbo (AW-1) in para 8 of his cross-
examination deposed that ''यह सह ह क रफ शह न हम बस लग
मटडर म बणड बजन ललय गम उरहर भज थ। यह हन गलत ह क
रफ शह मटरसइक ल स गय थ । यह सह ह क हम लग उरहर बणड
बज र " महर बणड बजन ललय ज रह थ। यह सह ह क मटडर म$
" छ लग आग बठ थ और " छ लग पछ बठ थ। यह हन गलत ह क
मर ई हडड नह, ट-ट। म. हसतकर रत ह-1 प.ड. 1 पर ''ए'' स ''ए''
भग पर मर हसतकर ह यह सह ह म. और मटडर म$ ज बणड बज
समन थ उस मलल मटडर म$ ज बठ थ उन नह, थ वह रफ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
10
शह थ'', On perusal of evidence of such witness, it is seen that he
has improved his Court version because in his earlier statement, he
deposed that he was travelling in the vehicle for the purpose of security of
musical instruments, but in his cross-examination, he deposed that he was
travelling in offending vehicle for the purpose of playing the musical
instruments in marriage party, therefore, his statement is not reliable.
13. Similarly, injured witness-Vinod (AW-2) has also improved his
Court version in his cross-examination and narrated the same version as
given by Vinod (AW-1). Further, claimant Antram (AW-3) in his cross-
examination has not deposed that he was sitting in the alleged offending
vehicle for the security of musical instruments.
14. Claimant Vaheed Khan (AW-5) in his earlier statement deposed
that he was sitting in the vehicle for security of musical instruments but
before the Court in his cross-examination, he deposed that he was
travelling in the offending vehicle for the purpose of playing musical
instruments at Urera in the marriage function, therefore, it appears that
this witness has also improved his Court version.
15. Further, claimant Bachchu Singh (AW-4) in his cross-examination
deposed that he was not an authorized agent of said musical instruments.
16. So, considering the evidence of aforementioned claimants/injured,
it is vivid clear that the claimants/ injured in their claim petitions pleaded
that they were travelling in the alleged vehicle as gratuitous passengers
and they were not travelling in the alleged vehicle as authorized agents of
owner of said musical instruments and they have improved their Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
11
version only for getting compensation and they did not cross-examine
owner of the said musical instruments, who stated that the claimants are
authorized agents of him and they were sent for the purpose of security of
musical instruments.
17. In the FIR (Ex.P2), it was mentioned that the claimants were not
travelling as authorized agents of said musical instruments only for
security purpose. Considering the above aspects, it is clear that the
claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers
and they are not authorized agents of owner of musical instruments. On
perusal of record, it is clear that the Insurance Company had not taken
any premium for gratuitous passengers. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal
has committed an error in holding the Insurance Company liable for
payment of compensation to the claimants, therefore, the finding of the
Claims Tribunal in this regard stands set aside by exonerating the
Insurance Company from its liability. The owner and driver of alleged
offending vehicle were liable to pay the compensation amount to the
claimants.
18. In view of above, the appeals filed by Insurance Company seeking
exoneration from its liability to pay the compensation amount in favour
of claimants deserve to be and are hereby allowed.
19. Now, the next questions comes before this Court regarding
enhancement of compensation amount awarded by Claims Tribunal.
20. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants (MA.No.1423 of
2011, MA.No.1424 of 2011, MA.No.1426 of 2011, MA.No.1427 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
12
2011, MA.No.1428 of 2011) submitted that compensation amount
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The claimants/ injured
received so many injuries in the alleged accident and had spent more
money in their treatment. Hence, prayed for enhancement of
compensation by setting aside the award of the Claims Tribunal.
21. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company
supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of appeals filed by
claimants.
22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more
particularly, the age of the claimants/injured and injuries received by
them in the alleged accident, it shall be appropriate to award the
following enhanced compensation amount in addition to the amount as
already awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, which shall carry interest at
the same rate as awarded by the Claims Tribunal in its award from the
date of filing of claim petitions till realization.
(i) Vinod/injured claimant in MA No.1423 of 2011 is entitled to get
enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the amount as already
already awarded by Claims Tribunal.
(ii) Jabbosya/injured claimant in MA No.1424 of 2011 is entitled to
get enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the amount as already
already awarded by Claims Tribunal.
(iii) Bachchu/injured claimant in MA No.1426 of 2011 is entitled to
get enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the amount as already
already awarded by Claims Tribunal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
13
(iv) Antram/injured claimant in MA No.1427 of 2011 is entitled to
get enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/- in addition to the amount as already
already awarded by Claims Tribunal.
(v) Vaheed/injured claimant in MA No.1428 of 2011 is entitled to
get enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the amount as already
already awarded by Claims Tribunal.
23. With the aforesaid modification, appeals filed by Insurance
Company is allowed and Insurance Company is totally exonerated from
liability. Only owner and driver of the offending vehicle are liable to pay
compensation in favour of claimants/injured.
24. Appeal filed by claimants are allowed in part.
Let a copy of this order be placed in connected
M.A.Nos.1424/2011, 1426/2011, 1427/2011, 1428/2011, 1668/2011,
1669/2011, 1670/2011, 1671/2011 and 1672/2011.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Avi*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 26-Aug-25
10:12:59 AM
[ad_1]
Source link