IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 19 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 3992 of 2024 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Versus SAROJ SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Suresh Raj - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Sharad Sharma - Advocate for respondent/Caveator.

ORDER By way of the present Misc. Appeal, the award dated 29/02/2024 passed in Claim Case No. 532 of 2022 by the Learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni (M.P.), has been challenged at the instance of the insurance company.

2 . The facts of the case reveal that an accident took place on

17/03/2022, and FIR was lodged on 03/04/2022. As per the averments in the claim petition, the deceased was posted as A.S.I. and was returning home on the occasion of Holi. At around 10:45, when the deceased reached Bansal Dhaba, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 20 HB 0447 collided with him. As a result he sustained fatal injuries and was admitted to Metro Hospital, Jabalpur, and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to death. An offence was registered at Police Station Sleemanabad at Crime No. 172 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Meanwhile, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,58,00,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal, vide the impugned award dated 29/02/2024, has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.59,36,000/-

alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant.

He has criticized the impugned award on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and therefore the story of the accident is false. The learned counsel elaborated his arguments by submitting that the accident occurred on 17/03/2022, the FIR was lodged on 03/04/2022, and the truck was seized on 03/04/2022. There is a delay of around 17 days, which has not been satisfactorily explained; thus, a case of false implication is made out. He has further argued that the dependency has been wrongly calculated by deducting 1/4th, whereas 1/3rd ought to have been deducted, and that the major son and daughter cannot be considered dependents. Lastly, it was argued that the Tribunal has imposed interest @ 6% and directed that the amount be paid within three months, failing which the rate of interest would be 8% after 90 days. This part of the order is also objectionable, and therefore a prayer for setting aside the award has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the memo of appeal and the arguments reveals that two issues have been raised in the present appeal. The first issue pertains to the consideration of a major son and daughter as dependents and the question of dependency. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after referring to the earlier judgment in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., (1987) 3 SCC 234, has held in paragraphs 11 to 17 as under:-

"11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company tried to persuade us that since the term `legal representative' has not been defined under the Act, the provision of Section 1- A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, should be taken as guiding principle and the claim should be confined only for the benefit of wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death has been caused by the accident. In this context, he cited judgment of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad V/s. Raman Bhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1690. In that case, covered by the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, the claimant was a brother of a deceased killed in