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

th

ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 5756 of 2018 SMT SHYAMUBAI AND OTHERS Versus BHAGWANSINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jahangir M. Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 5837 of 2018 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Versus SMT. SHYAMUBAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Jahangir M. Poonegar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6.

ORDER Both these appeals have been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 22.9.2018 passed in Claim Case No.100/2016. M.A.No.5837/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.No.5756/2018 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

2. Short facts of the case are that on 12.9.2016 at around 9.00 in the night deceased Ratanlal was going by his motorcycle No.MP-43-MJ-7195 on Jaora-Badavada Public Road, near Maleni River culvert close to village Nayapura, the insured vehicle No.RJ-01-GA-9687 was standing in the middle of the road without there being any signage of its parking. The deceased could not locate the same and rammed his motorcycle into the truck because of which he sustained grievous injuries and died out of those injuries.

2.1 The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the claims Tribunal claiming compensation for death of Ratanlal. The claims Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- to the claimants. However, while assessing this compensation the tribunal held that as the deceased had rammed his motorcycle into standing vehicle, hence he was also equally liable for the accident and 50% contributory negligence was assigned to him and ultimately total compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- was directed to be paid to the claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that merely because the deceased had rammed into a standing vehicle contributory negligence cannot be assigned to him. It was a time of 9.00 in the night as such there was dark all over. The vehicle was not visible as no indicators were on and there was no signage of its parking, in absence of which appellant could not locate the vehicle. As such, it was not his negligence, but the negligence on the part of the insured vehicle. Hence, the claims Tribunal should not have assigned

50% contributory negligence to the deceased.

4. As regards the appeal of the Insurance Company, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in fact the Driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid driving license and in the proceedings before the claims Tribunal a fake driving license was produced as the same could not be verified during pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The report of verification could not be placed before the Tribunal. He submits that although the Insurance Company had promptly taken steps for verification of the driving license, but no response was forthcoming from the authorities of the Transport Department. In absence of the verification report the same could not be placed before the Tribunal. However, the same has been placed before this Court by way of filing I.A.No.4139/2024, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. He, thus submits that as the Driver was not having valid driving license, the vehicle was being driven in breach of terms of the insurance policy. He, thus prays for exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the record.

6. It is seen from record of M.A.No.5837/2018 that the Driver Bhagwan Singh was served through District Judge as per report dated 17.9.2019 and LRs of respondent No.2 owner were served as per report dated 22.10.2021, who were brought on record. Even after service of notice neith