New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ratlam vs Poonam Kunwar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ratlam v. Poonam Kunwar & 8 Others & Others
Miscellaneous Appeals No. 2612 of 2007 and 2707 of 2007 (Indore): against the award dated 19.5.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACC No. 28 of 2006; Decided on 21.8.2025

Advocates Appeared:
Sudhir Dandwate for insurance company; Arun Gupta for claimants;
Akhil Godha, on behalf of Vishal Verma, for respondent/owner.

Headnote:
(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 128, 166 and 168 -- contributory negligence -- apart from the fact that deceased was sitting on motorcycle with two other persons, no other material to assign or demonstrate negligence of persons sitting on motorcycle -- deceased was not riding motorcycle but was sitting as pillion rider -- impugned award regarding 30% contributory negligence of persons sitting on motorcycle set aside -- driver of offending bus was 100% negligent. 2008 ACJ 393 and AIR 2020 SC 520 followed. [Paras 15 & 17]
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 166 and 168 -- assessment of income -- income of deceased largely from agriculture -- agricultural land in name of grandmother of deceased -- income from said land would continue to be generated, although there will be involvement of some employee for supervision, thus, there will be additional expenditure -- no licence or registration of shop regarding claim that deceased was operating shop for selling milk -- no infirmity in taking income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. AIR 2023 SC 44 referred to. [Paras 18 & 19]
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 3, 4, 5, 15, 149 and 168 -- liability of insurance company -- breach of policy -- absence of valid licence -- licence renewed after more than 4 months of date of accident -- insurance company not liable to pay compensation -- however, vehicle was insured and deceased person was a third party -- breach of insurance policy is dispute between owner and company, for which claimants cannot be made to suffer -- insurance company shall pay compensation to claimants and then it can recover the same from owner/driver of bus. 2008 ACJ 2860, 2009 ACJ 2697 and (2022) 15 SCC 572 followed. 2001 ACJ 1758 distinguished. 2001 (1) MPHT 221, 2000 (1) ACJ 507, AIR 1990 SC 1979, 2009 ACJ 581 and 2001 MPHT 461 referred to. [Paras 5 & 25]
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 128] 166 rFkk 168 & ;ksxnk;h mis{kk & bl rF; ds vfrfjä fd e`rd nks vU; O;fä;ksa ds lkFk eksVjlkbfdy ij cSBk Fkk] eksVjlkbfdy ij cSBs gq, O;fä;ksa dh mis{kk crkus ;k çnf'kZr djus ds fy, vU; dksbZ lkexzh ugha] e`rd eksVjlkbfdy pyk ugha jgk Fkk] vfirq ihNs cSBk Fkk & eksVjlkbfdy ij cSBs gq, O;fä;ksa dh 30 Áfr'kr ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ls lacafèkr vkf{kIr vf/kfu.kZ; vikLr & mYya?kudkjh cl dk pkyd 100 Áfr'kr mis{kkiw.kZ FkkA 2008 ,lhts 393 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2020 ,llh 520 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 17½
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 166 rFkk 168 & vk; dk fuèkkZj.k & e`rd dh vk; eq[;r% —f"k ls & —f"k Hkwfe e`rd dh ekrkegh ds uke ij & mä Hkwfe ls vk; gksrh jgsxh] ;|fi i;Zos{k.k ds fy, dksbZ deZpkjh yxsxkA vr% vfrfjä O;; gksxk & bl nkos ds laca/k esa dksbZ vuqKfIr ;k nqdku dk iath;u ugha fd e`rd nqX/k foØ; dh nqdku pyk jgk Fkk & vk; :i;s 6]000@& çfrekl ekuus esa dksbZ 'kSfFkY; ughaA ,vkbvkj 2023 ,llh 44 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 18 ,oa 19½
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 3] 4] 5] 15] 149 rFkk 168 & chek daiuh dk nkf;Ro & i‚fylh dk Hkax & fof/kekU; vuqKfIr dk vHkko & vuqKfIr nq?kZVuk ds fnukad ls 4 ekl ls vf/kd le; i'pkr~ uoh—r dh xbZ & chek daiuh çfrdj lanÙk djus ds fy, nk;h ugha & rFkkfi] ;ku chfer Fkk rFkk e`rd ijO;fä Fkk & chek i‚fylh dk Hkax Lokeh vkSj daiuh ds e/; dk fookn gS] ftlds fy, nkosnkjksa dks d"V Hkksxus ugha fn;k tk ldrk & chek daiuh nkosnkjksa dks çfrdj lanÙk djs vkSj fQj og mls cl ds Lokehpkyd ls olwy dj ldrh gSA 2008 ,lhts 2860] 2009 ,lhts 2697 rFkk ¼2022½ 15 ,llhlh 572 vuqlfjrA 2001 ,lhts 1758 çHksfnrA 2001 ¼1½ ,eih,pVh 221] 2000 ¼1½ ,lhts 507] ,vkbvkj 1990 ,llh 1979] 2009 ,lhts 581 rFkk 2001 ,eih,pVh 461 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 5 ,oa 25½

ORDER

1. Both the appeals are arising out of the award dated 19.5.2007 passed by the claims tribunal in MACC No.28/2006.

2. MA No.2612/2007 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award on the question of fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon it. The other appeal i.e. MA No.2707/2007 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and against the part holding 30% contributory negligence of the deceased.

3. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present cases are that on 8.1.2006 the deceased Hemant Singh was going along with friends Shankar Singh and Vishnu from Dalauda to Mandsaur by a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being ridden by Shankar Singh and Hemant Singh and Vishnu were sitting as pillion riders, when they reached near Soyabean Choupal Mhow-Neemuch Road, a bus bearing registration No.MP43-F-0004 came driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the motorcycle of Shankar Singh because of this accident all three persons sustained grievous injuries. Hemant Singh was referred from Mandsaur hospital to Ahemadabad for treatment where he died during treatment.

4. The claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Hemant Singh. The claims tribunal while recording findings about the accident concluded that there was 30% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and 70% negligence was on the part of the bus driver. The basis of contributory negligence was recorded by the claims tribunal in para Nos.10, 11, 12, and 13. But a close scrutiny of these paras would reveal that the contributory negligence of the deceased as well as other two persons on the motorcycle was attributed by the claims tribunal only for the fact that three persons were sitting on the motorcycle which was in breach of provision of section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thus, they were found to be negligent. As regards the negligence of the bus it has come in para 7 that the bus was running very fast. It has also come on record that the bus was trying to overtake a truck.

5. The claims tribunal in view of the above findings of the contributory negligence while assessing total compensation to the tune of Rs.11,81,566/- has awarded only an amount of Rs.8,27,095/- to the claimants as rest 30% was deducted for contributory negligence. Apart from this, while considering the question No.3 regarding validity of driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle and consequential liability of the insurance company the claims tribunal has recorded in para 24 that it is apparent from Ex.D-1 that the period of driving license was from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.2000. By referring to the statement of Ravindra Virbal NAW-1, who was Sahaayak Grade-III at RTO, Mandsaur as well as NAW-3 Sajjan Sharma who was the accountant in the said office the tribunal recorded that the license of the driver of the bus was not renewed from 31.12.2000 to 17.4.2006. The claims tribunal by ignoring absence of license, considered a different aspect i.e. the disqualification of the driver in as much as wether he was disqualified by competent authority or not, while doing so it completely overlooked the fact that it has clearly come on record that the license of the driver was renewed on 17.4.2006 i.e. after more than 4 months of the date of accident. The claims tribunal considered in para 27 that the driver was not disqualified by the RTO in terms of section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the claims tribunal observed that even if at the time of accident the driver was not having driving license still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

6. As regards the income, the claims tribunal considered the income of the deceased Hemant Singh in para 13, 14 and 15 and after discussing the evidence in further paragraphs i.e. para Nos.17, 18, 21 and 22 concluded the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month.

7. Th