Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajendri vs Ashok Singh on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
1 MA-4934-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 4934 of 2019
SMT. RAJENDRI AND OTHERS
Versus
ASHOK SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Madhukar Kulshretha - learned counsel for the respondent No.1
to 2.
Shri Kamal Kumar Rochalani - learned counsel for the respondent
No.3.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena vide award dated 26.06.2019 in Claim
Case No.54/2017 whereby MACT has awarded compensation amount of
Rs.7,35,520/- along with interest @6% per annum to the claimants on
account of death of deceased in a road accident.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
On 01.01.2017, at about 1:30 AM, the deceased – Chhotelal Thakur along
with his companion were returning to their village by tractor bearingSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:135712 MA-4934-2019
registration number M.P.-06-AB-0797. The tractor had stopped on the way
due to a mechanical defect. Chhotelal Thakur alighted from the vehicle and
went towards to the cannal’s. At that moment, after repairing the tractor, the
driver drove it in rash and negligent manner and struck the deceased, causing
him grievous injuries. As a result, Chhotelal Thakur died on the spot.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
that when the deceased was going on foot, the offending vehicle came from
behind and hit him, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed on the spot. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the police
report and the statements of witnesses marked as Ex.D/2 to Ex.D/5,
concluded that the deceased was sitting on the tractor and not covered underthe insurance policy, therefore, exonerated the insurance company. However,
the appellants have adduced the evidence of Smt. Rajendri (AW/1), who is
widow of the deceased. Phan Singh (AW/2), who is an eyewitness to the
incident, they remained unshaken in their statements that the accident was
caused by the offending vehicle hitting the deceased from behind. Both
eyewitnesses have remained consistent on their version of events. Since the
case involves third-party injury and death, the exoneration of the Insurance
Company from paying the compensation is erroneous. The Insurance
Company should be held liable to pay the compensation amount. It is further
submitted that future prospects at the rate of 25% ought to have been
considered. Additionally, under other heads, the loss of consortium to both
the claimants has not been properly granted. An amount of only Rs70,000/-
has been awarded, which ought to be Rs.1,10,000/-. Alternatively he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
3 MA-4934-2019
submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the deceased was
sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, in that condition, even the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation first to the claimant and it is at
liberty to recover it from owner and driver of the offending vehicle. To
buttress his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the cases of Halappa vs. Malik Sab, 2018 ACJ 686; V. Renganathan
and Others, 2023 ACJ 623; and Shivraj vs. Rajendra and Others , 2018 ACJ
2755 and Satish Chandra Upadhyay and other vs. Harnam Singh and others
in M.A. No.224 of 2011 and Insurance Company vs. Chintu and other in
M.A. No.1162 of 2005.
4. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance
Company has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the
deceased was sitting on the tractor and, therefore, was not covered under the
insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is
not liable to pay any compensation amount to the claimant. He has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Sahu vs. Sakhi and
other in M.A. No.1339 of 2010 and Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the
case of Ramashray Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others
(2003) 2 ACC 706 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalabai (2018)
ACJ 2422 and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no
direction for ‘pay and recover’ may be issued in favour of the claimant. That
apart, there is no ground for enhancement of the compensation amount as
claimed by the learned counsel for the claimants.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
4 MA-4934-2019
6. Smt. Rajendri (AW/1) admitted in her cross-examination that she
was not eye-witness to the incident. Eye-witness Than-Singh (AW/2) has
been examined on behalf of claimants/appellants. Than Singh (AW/2) stated
in his chief-examination that on 1.1.2017 he was returning with deceased
Chottelal and Maan Singh by offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing
registration No.MP-06-AB-0797 after selling the agricultural
goods. Between Morena and their village Tujsipura, Tehsil Jaura, the tractor
get stopped due to some mechanical defects. The driver of the offending
vehicle, Chotu (NAW/1), started repairing it. Than Singh and he himself got
down from the tractor and going by foot at the side of the canal. Suddenly,
after repairing the said vehicle, the driver of the offending vehicle drove
it rashly and negligently and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased died
due to the injuries sustained by him. He was cross-examined on the point
that such a description was not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/2), merg report
(Ex.P/3), or in the police statements of the witnesses. He admitted that this
version is not mentioned in the FIR or the appended documents. He did not
provide any explanation for such an omission.
7. Though it is trite that in claim cases the factum of accident is to be
proved on principle of preponderance of probability. But having regard to
the statement of witnesses and documents submitted, exhibited and relied by
the claimants there seems a major contradiction in their statement. The FIR
and and other documents including police statements and final report
contained the fact that along with driver of offending vehicle the deceased
Man Singh and Than Singh were travelling, suddenly, the tractor fell into the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
5 MA-4934-2019
canal; therefore, the deceased died due to drowning in the canal. The
claimants cannot partially relied on these documents. Once a part of it is
relied by the claimants it would not justifiable for them to deny the other part
of the documents. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Premlata
Shukla and Others (2007) ACJ 1928 , the relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 are
reproduced as under:
13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from
the First Information Report. It is also to be noted that once a part
of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party
bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and
contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof
had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It
was marked as an Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely
upon them.
14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned
Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in
relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the
document been proved or not. If the contents have been proved,
the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and
not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not
been proved in accordance with law, would not arise.
8. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Kiran
2018 2 ACC 376 , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that at the
time of alleged incident, the tractor was being used for carrying the
passengers and transporting the sand in contravention of the policy
condition. The Court has held that the mudguard of the tractor is not meant
for carrying passengers and thus, there is no statutory requirement to cover
the risk of gratuitous passenger travelling on a tractor under Section 147 of
the Motor Vehicle Act; therefore, the insurance company is not held liableSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
6 MA-4934-2019
for payment of compensation. Same law laid down in the case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd v Kala Bai (2018) ACJ 2422 and New India Assurance
Co. Ltd v Vedwati (2007) 1 ACC 924.
9. In the case of Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
and others (2003) 2 ACC 706 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the
concerned employees is neither a driver nor conductor nor examiner of
tickets, insured cannot be claim that the employee would come under the
description of “any person” or “passenger”. If this were permissible, then
there would be no need to make special provisions for the employees of the
insured.
10. In the case of Halapa v. Malik Sab 2018 ACJ 686 Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that Insurance Company neither produced the file and report
of the investigator nor examined any other witness to rebut the version of the
injured. It is held that analysis of evidence by Tribunal to believe the version
of the testimony of injured and eye-witnesses has been displaced by the
High Court without considering the material aspect of the evidence on
record.
11. In the present case, however, the facts and circumstances are
distinguishable. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants to prove
the factum of the accident has produced, exhibited, and relied upon
documents such as the FIR, final report, etc., which clearly reveal that the
deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor at the time of the
accident. This version is binding on the claimants.; therefore, learned
Tribunal has rightly concluded that though the deceased died due to accident
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
7 MA-4934-2019
with the offending vehicle but at that time he was travelling on the mudguard
of the tractor it was not meant for carrying a passenger and thereby the
condition of insurance policy has been violated in this case.
12. Learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company for
paying the compensation but in the case of V. Renganthan and another vs.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another 2023 ACJ
623 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the tractor met with the accident
resulting in the death of the person travelling on the mudguard of the tractor.
It is found that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and
entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the tractor.
13. In the case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Others , 2018 ACJ 2755,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated a similar view in paragraphs 9 and 10,
which are as follows:
9. The High Court, however, found in favour of respondent No.2
(insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger
which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was
insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The
evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was
any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor.
Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as
a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one
person namely the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company
(respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered
by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That
conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is
unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.
10. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the
High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay
the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with liberty
to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the
consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh & Ors ACJ.1(SC); Mangla
Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2018 ACJ 1300 (SC), Rani
Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 ACJ 2430 (SC) and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
8 MA-4934-2019
Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh 2017 ACJ 1031(SC).
In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the
appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. Appellant may,
therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the
appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner
(respondent No.1).
14. In the case of Satish Chandra Upadhyay and Others vs. Harnam
Singh and Others, vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed in M.A. No. 224 of
2011, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-
Insurance is a statutory contract between the insured and insurer.
By which, the insurer indemnifies the insured against all the
compensation, which may be claimed against him. However, the
insurance company can avoid its liability on the ground that the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated by the
insured. Therefore, it is an inter se dispute between the insured
and the insurer. If the insurance company is of a view that the
conditions of the insurance policy were violated and it is not
responsible to pay the compensation, then the insurance company
can always recover the amount from the insured. Since, the
insurance company has the right to recover the amount by
execution of the impugned award itself and is not required to
institute a separate suit, therefore, it is held that although the
insurance company is exonerated due to violations of the
conditions of insurance policy but it shall satisfy the award with a
right to recover the compensation amount from the owner/driver.
15. In the case of Chintu and Others v. Gulab Singh and others vide
order dated 26.03.2019 passed in M.A. No. 1130 of 2005 , the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:
10. In the present case, the Insurance Policy was filed by the
Claimants themselves, which has not been disputed by any of the
parties. Thus, without applying the doctrine of strict proof, it is
held that the Tractor and Trolley were insured for agricultural
purposes, and the deceased was travelling in the trolley and she
was not covered under the Insurance Policy. Thus, it is clear that
there was a violation of Insurance Policy and thus, the Insurance
Company is not jointly and severally liable along with the owner
and driver.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
9 MA-4934-2019
11. However, in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme
Court in the cases of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra reported in (2018) 10
SCC 432, Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd and Others reported in 2018(3) TAC 1 (SC)
a n d Shamanna and Another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 9 SCC
650, the Insurance Company is held liable to pay
compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the
owner of the tractor.
16. Having considered the law laid down in the aforesaid case, though
there is a breach of the policy condition in the present case, the Insurance
Company cannot avoid its liability to first pay the amount of compensation
to the claimant. However, it shall be at liberty to recover the said amount
from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
17. As far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, the
learned Tribunal has granted future prospects @10%, despite the fact that the
age of the deceased was 50 years. In the light of judgment of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are
entitled to get future prospects at the rate of 25%. There are two claimants;
therefore, they are also entitled to get compensation for loss of consortium at
the rate of Rs.40,000/- per head. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied a
deduction of one-third towards personal expenses and adopted the correct
multiplier of 13. The income of the deceased has rightly been assumed by
the learned Tribunal.
18. Resultantly, the assessment of the compensation is this case as
under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
10 MA-4934-2019
Amout of compensastion Amout of
Sr.No. Head awarded by claims Compensation assessed
Tribunal by this Court.
1 Income 5,800/- 5,800/-
Personal
2. 1/3 1/3
Expenses
Future
3. 10% 25%
Prospects
4. Multiplier 13 13
5,800×12
=69,600 x1/3
5. Loss of Income 6,63,520/- =46,400/-+25%
=58,000/- x 13
=7,54,000/-
Dead body
6. Transportation 2,000-/ 2,000/-
charge
Loss of
7. 40,000/- 80,000/-
consortium
Funeral
8 15,000/- 15,000/-
Expenses
9. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 15,000/-
Total
10. 7,35,520/- 8,66,000/-
compensation
Additional
11. 1,30,480/-
Enhancement
19. Although the appellants have valued this appeal at Rs.1,00,000/-
and have paid court fees on the said amount, however, in view of the
decision of the Apex Court in Kavita Balthiya and Others vs. Santosh Kumar
and Another in Civil Appeal No. 8053/2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 16558/2024), it
is directed that the appellants shall pay the court fees on the remaining
amount of Rs.30,480/- (i.e. Rs. 1,30,480/- – Rs. 1,00,000) within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13571
11 MA-4934-2019
which, the present order shall not be given effect to.
20. The other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
21. With the aforesaid, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed off.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 7/9/2025
12:46:01 PM