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. 1721 of 2016 BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SOLOMAN COMPLEX SAGAR Versus GYATRI AHIRWAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dinesh Kaushal - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Aryan Shukla - Advocate for respondents.

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 1728 of 2016 PRAKASH PATEL AND OTHERS Versus GAYATRI AHIRWAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Priti Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Sanjeev Neekhra - Advocate for respondent no.4/ Insurance Company.

ORDER These misc. appeals arise out of common award therefore, are being decided analogously.

2. These appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed against a common award dated 30/04/2016, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hatta, District Damoh in Claim Case No. 42 of 2014 (Gayatri & Others vs. Prakash & Others), whereby the claim petition of the claimants has been partly allowed by awarding a compensation of Rs.26,95,518/- alongwith interest @ 7% and the insurance company has been directed to pay and recover the amount from the driver & owner. By way of the present appeals, the insurance company, by filing M.A. No. 1721 of 2016 has challenged the direction to pay and recover, whereas the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have challenged the award by filing M.A. No.1728 of 2016, seeking modification of the award by holding all the respondents jointly and severally liable.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on

22/09/2014 at about 2:30 p.m., deceased Nannu Singh was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 34 ME 4450 along with his friend, Manoj Rajpur. Near Shankar Mandir at Sakor Square, the offending tractor bearing registration No. MP 34 A 1689, driven by respondent No. 1 Prakash, in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased. As a result, deceased Nannu Singh fell on the road and the offending vehicle ran over him. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was filed in the matter.

4. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition before the competent court seeking compensation of ₹46,84,362/-. After appreciation of the evidence and documents brought on record, the Tribunal, vide its award dated 30/04/2016, partly allowed the claim by awarding Rs.26,95,518/- to the claimants and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. This award dated 30/04/2016 has now been put to test before this Court.

5. Both the appeals were heard together. Insurance company, has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Tribunal erred in passing the award. It was argued that once the Tribunal had found that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay the compensation amount. It was further argued that the direction to “pay and recover” can be issued only by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 142 read with Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the insurance company relied upon various judgments to support his contention and also prayed for dismissal of M.A. No. 1728 of 2016 filed on behalf of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

6. Learned counsel for the driver and owner, has countered the arguments advanced by the insurance company. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in passing the award with a direction to pay and recover. It was further contended that the premium of the insurance policy had been duly paid and that the driver possessed a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle. Lastly, it was submitted that rectification of the impugned award is warranted.

7. I have heard the learned counsel and, with their able assistance, perused the rec