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

nd

ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2448 of 2007 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Versus KALAWATI BAI & 6 OTHERS AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sudhir Dhandwate - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Vijay Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1 to

7].

Shri R.N.Dave - Advocate with Shri Hemant Vaishnav - Advocate for the respondents.

HEARD ON: 09.07.2025 DELIVERED ON: 02.09.2025 ..............................................................................................................................................................................

ORDER The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 18.05.2007 passed in Claim Case No.206/2005 challenging the liability of the insurance company inter alia on the ground that in fact the owner of the vehicle himself was the driver and there was complete absence of negligence, the accident occurred due to motorcycle lost its balance, as such, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability of payment of insurance. The second ground is that the two unmarried daughters who were Claimant Nos. 5 and 6, were made party Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN pursuant to the order of the claims tribunal itself though they were not dependent on the deceased.

2. Short facts of the case are that the deceased Parwatibai Yadav was going as a pillion rider on 15.08.2005 at around 8:30 in the night on the motorcycle having Registration No.MP-09-LF-4846 from MY Hospital to Palasiya. The said motorcycle was being ridden by the respondent No.1- Deepak in rash and negligent manner, the same got dis-balanced due to rash and negligent riding of the respondent no. 1 and dashed into the divider of the road because of which Parwatibai fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She was immediately rushed to the hospital where she died during treatment. Initially, her sister claimant No.1 Kalawati and Kalawati's three children filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the claims tribunal. The claims tribunal vide order dated 10.11.2006 directed the claimant No.1 to implead two married daughters and son as party in the claim petition. Pursuant to which, an application was filed by the claimant No.1 and the claims tribunal vide order dated 09.01.2007 permitted impleadment of both the daughters of the deceased Parwatibai as claimants. The son of the deceased Deepak was already impleaded as respondent No.1 for the reasons that he was the rider, who was riding the bike when the accident occurred.

3. The claims tribunal after considering the evidence available on record concluded that the claimant No.1 Kalawati being a married sister living separately and her three children i.e. claimant No.2 to 4 were not dependent on deceased Parwatibai. As such, the claims tribunal in para 17 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN concluded that the claimants No.1 to 4 are not dependent and are also not their legal heirs thus, they are not entitled for any compensation.

4. However, the claims tribunal after denying compensation to claimant Nos.1 to 4, went on to held that two daughters i.e. claimants Nos.5 and 6 as well as non-applicant No.1 Deepak, being the daughters and son of the deceased are legal heirs of the deceased hence, they are entitle for the compensation.

5. After concluding thus, the claims tribunal recorded the findings regarding income of the deceased which was taken at Rs. 1,21,236/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd from the same for personal expenses of the deceased, compensation of Rs. 8,86,064/- was directed to be paid to the claimants No.5 and 6 and non-applicant No.1.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that initially only claimants No.1 to 4 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was only on the order of the claims tribunal that the daughters were impleaded as claimant Nos.