Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13045
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
MISC. APPEAL No. 2853 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
UNITED INSURANCE CO.LTD. THRU.LEGAL CELL,IDA
BUILDINGH,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHAR DANDWATE, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND
1.
RAKSINGH BHILALA & 3 ORS. S/O KALSINGH BHILALA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRIL.
DHOLIYAWAD,TEH.RANAPURA,JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. NURLIRAKSINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RANAPURA
DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MAGAN S/O MANGA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RUNKHEDA
TEH. I (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AMARSINGH S/O MEDIYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RUNKHEDA TEH. I (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY PATWA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
_______________________________________________________
Reserved on: 04.12.2023
Pronounced on: 22.12.2023
_______________________________________________________
This miscellaneous appeal having been heard and reserved
for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Shri
Achal Kumar Paliwal pronounced the following:
Sv.Dandwate,Vp.Singh,M.Negi,R.Khan/,Sanjay Patwa,Manish Jain,Tarun Kushwaha,Hc Khakdia
Involvement of offending vehicle in a motor vehicle accident can be established based on evidence other than the FIR, and compensation should be awarded in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - INVOLVEMENT OF OFFENDING VEHICLE - COMPENSATION - [Involvement of offending vehicle in the accident was established based on the charge sheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle, despite the absence of details in the FIR. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal v. Lala, considering the age of the deceased and the notional income.]
Fact of the Case:
A motorcycle accident occurred on 20.01.2007, resulting in the death of a minor. The FIR lodged on the same day did not mention the details of the offending motorcycle or its driver. The motorcycle was seized on 20.03.2007, and a charge sheet was filed against the rider under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident was established based on the charge sheet filed against the rider. The court also found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and enhanced it based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal v. Lala.
Issues: 1. Whether the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident was established. 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident can be established even if the FIR does not contain details of the vehicle or its driver, provided that there is other evidence to support the involvement, such as a charge sheet filed against the rider. 2. The compensation awarded for a motor vehicle accident should be based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, the notional income, and the multiplier.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the claimants were allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs.1,57,500/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.
2
This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant –
Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, being aggrieved by award dated 15.07.2008 passed by
Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua, in
Claim Case No.46/2007.
(2)
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company after
referring to FIR Ex.P/1 submits that it has been lodged by pillion
rider but therein no details of offending motorcycle i.e. color
make, model etc are mentioned and neither the name of driver, is
mentioned therein. It is mentioned in FIR that rider of motorcycle
fled away from the scene of accident immediately. The incident is
dated 20.01.2007, FIR was lodged on 20.01.2007 and motorcycle
has been seized on 20.03.2007. Chargesheet has been filed on
22.03.2007. Appellant has not examined Ganpat who lodged FIR.
The appellants have examined Jhetu (PW/2) but his name is not
mentioned in any documents prepared immediately after the
accident. This witness has stated that he knows injured but he did
not take him to hospital. This witness has also not lodged any FIR.
(PW/1) has not stated anything about Jhetu in his deposition. On
above grounds, it is submitted involvement of offending vehicle in
the accident is not proved. Hence, insurance company is not liable
to pay the compensation.
(3)
Relying upon United India Insurance Company Limited
vs. Salauddin Abdulkhadar Maniyar and Another reported in
2009 ACJ 524 (Karnataka) it is urged that where the Insurance
Company has challenged involvement of offending vehicle in the
3
accident and has disputed the liability, then cross objections for
enhancement of award are not maintainable. The
respondents/claimants should have separately filed the appeal. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no
enhanced amount is required to be paid to the
respondents/claimants. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal
be allowed and Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to
pay the compensation.
(4)
Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants after relying
upon Urmila Devi and Others vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and Another reported in 2020 ACJ 771, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajesh Devi and Others
reported I 2018 ACJ 301, UP State Road Transport Corporation
vs. Janki Devi and Others reported in 1982 ACJ 429, National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Shaikh Kuddush and Others
reported in 2021 ACJ 1149, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited vs. T. Selvarani and Others reported in 2017
ACJ 396, submits that in the instant appeal, cross-objections are
maintainable for enhancement of compensation.
(5)
Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, after
referring to para nos.15 to 24 of impugned award, submits that
after investigation into the present accident, police has filed the
charge-sheet against the rider of offending vehicle who was riding
the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and has caused the
accident. Jhetu is a independent witness and there are no grounds
to disbelieve him.
4
(6)
It is also urged that learned trial Court has rightly concluded
that the accident has been caused by offending vehicle. It is also
urged that in the case of motor accident, strict rules of evidence is
not applicable and the case can be proved by preponderance of
probability. In this connection, he has relied upon various citations
such as Manful and Another vs. Mehmood and Others reported
in [2003(4) MPLJ 174 and Sneha Saularam Bankar and Others
vs. Hanumant Vaman Pednekar and Another reported in 2016
ACJ 1976.
(7)
Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants after
referring to Kusmi Devi vs. Mohd. Kasim and Another in 2023,
ACJ 1658, Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others in
2013 ACJ 2594 and Ratan and Another vs. Rakesh Jain and
Another in 2014 ACJ 2308 submits that compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on lower side and the Tribunal ought to have been
awarded minimum Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation to the claimants.
(8)
On above grounds, it
