IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 186 of 2005 NAVAL SINGH AND ORS. AND OTHERS Versus RADHESHYAM AND ORS. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sunil Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri S.S.Rajput- Advocate for the respondent No.2.

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 585 of 2005 RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORP., BARA Versus NAVAL SINGH AND ORS.

Appearance:

Shri S.S. Rajput- Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Sunil Jain- Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9.

Shri R.P. Gupta- Advocate for respondent No.5.

ORDER MA No. 585 of 2005 under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by Rajasthan State Transport Corporation challenging the impugned Award dated 15/10/2004 passed by Second Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) [hereinafter it would be referred to as '' the Claims Tribunal''] in Claim Case No.65/2004 for exonerating him liability to pay the compensation to the claimants where as MA No.186/2005 under Signature Not Verified Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by appellants/Claimants challenging the common impugned award dated 15/10/2004 passed by Second Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri [hereinafter it would be referred to as '' the Claims Tribunal''] in Claim Case No.65/2004 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Since facts of both miscellaneous appeals are same and they are arising out of common award passed by the Claims Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. As per findings of the Claims Tribunal in the case of death of Devendra Singh, an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,51,000/- has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal with interest from filing of claim petition till its realization.

4. Brief facts of the case is that claimants/appellants filed MA No.

186/2005 alleging that deceased- Devendra Singh died due to grievous injuries because of rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. RJ 28/T- 0338 by respondent No.1 on 22/09/2003. It is also submitted that aforesaid vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 (appellant in M.A. No. 585/2005) on the relevant date. It is contended that deceased-Devendra Singh was coming from Shivpuri to Kolras via motorcycle, offending vehicle dashed the motorcycle of deceased-Devendra Singh which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. Due to the accident, deceased-Devendra Singh sustained serious injuries in whole body and as a result of which he died on the spot. Thereafter, appellants filed a claim case before the Claims Tribunal seeking Signature Not Verified compensation against the respondents. Respondents filed their written statement and denied the accident.

5. Tribunal framed the issues and after recording evidence of both the parties granted compensation in favour of claimants/appellants in Claim Case No.186/2005.

6. In M.A. No. 186/2005, counsel for appellants submitted that Claims Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation amount. It is submitted that award passed by the Claims Tribunal is without any basis and is against the principles established by law. It is further submitted that Tribunal assessed income of the deceased in lower side and not granted compensation under the head of future prospect, loss of estate and funeral expenses, therefore, he is seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. In MA No. 585/2005, counsel for appellant submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned Award in favour of claimants. It is submitted that deceased- Devendra Singh was not dashed by bus, as deceased fell down by slipping on his motorcycle and falsely implicated the impugned vehicle for seeking compensation. It is submitted that he examined driver -Radheshayam of the offending vehicle who stated that deceased slipped from the motorcycle and thereafter collided with bus f