NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL ON THE 15 th OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 4920 of 2022 SMT. RAMSHRI ANURAGI AND OTHERS Versus SANTRAM PANDEY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Somesh Shukla – Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Rajendra Kumar – Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER

1. The present miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellants/claimants assailing the award dated 12.09.2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhatarpur (M.P.) in MACC No. 218/2021, whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants.

2. The appellants/claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 32,00,400/- (Thirty-Two Lakhs Four Hundred only) for the death of Khannulal Anuragi, who died in an accident involving a J.C.B. machine bearing registration number MP 16 DA 0520.

3. As per the appellants, on 07.12.2020, the deceased Khannulal was employed by Respondent No.1 as a driver/operator of the said J.C.B. vehicle. On the date of the incident, while operating the J.C.B. at the field of one Sunder Yadav in village Barbaspura, due to a technical fault, the deceased got off the J.C.B. to inspect the issue. During the inspection, due to sudden movement caused by the pushing of a lever, the deceased got caught between the loader bucket and the body of the J.C.B., leading to his death on the spot. A Marg Intimation was duly registered at the concerned police station.

4. The claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased, including his wife and minor children, filed a compensation claim against the respondents, i.e., the employer/owner of the J.C.B. and the insurance company, on the ground that the accident occurred during the course of employment and that the vehicle was duly insured with an additional premium covering the risk of the driver.

5. The learned Claims Tribunal, after framing seven issues, appreciated the evidence on record and, vide impugned award dated 12.09.2022, dismissed the claim, holding that the deceased died due to his own negligence and was not entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal committed an error in law and fact by failing to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, including the testimony of material witnesses and medical documents supporting the cause of death. The statements of Babulal and Nathhu @ Nathuram, who categorically deposed that the deceased was operating the J.C.B. at the time of the accident and died during the course of his employment, were not considered in the correct perspective. Their deposition established the employer-employee relationship and the cause of death being accidental in nature. The medical documents and Marg report clearly established that the deceased died due to accidental injury caused while inspecting the J.C.B. machine. The Tribunal failed to appreciate this uncontroverted evidence.

7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in observing that the deceased died due to his own negligence and was thus not entitled to compensation. It overlooked the fact that the vehicle was validly insured with Respondent No.2, and an additional premium had been paid to cover the risk of the driver, as evidenced by Exhibit P-4 (insurance policy). It is also submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 read with Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing the claimants with an option to pursue the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act in lieu of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Tribunal failed to consider the claim in accordance with Section 167, rendering the rejection of the claim unsustainable. The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the d