IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 5 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 999 of 2009

KAMALKISHORE BAGHEL

Versus

UDAY SINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri N.S.Pal - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Kamal S.Rochlani- Advocate for the respondent/Insurance

Company.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.

WITH

MISC. APPEAL No. 1070 of 2009

PANKAJ SHARMA

Versus

KAMAL KISHORE AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi with Shri Rajeev Shrivastava- Advocates for

the appellant.

Shri N.S.Pal - Advocate for respondent.

Shri K.S.Rochlani- Advocate for the Insurance Company.

ORDER whereas MA No. 999/2009 has been preferred by claimant Kamal Kishore Baghel under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, seeking enhancement thereof, while MA No. 1070/2009 has been filed by appellant/owner under the same provision, seeking exoneration from the liability fastened upon him by the Claims Tribunal.

Both the appeals arise out of the common award dated 20.04.2009

passed by the Second Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 02/2006,

2. Since both the appeals challenge the same award, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

3. Necessary facts for adjudication of both the appeals in short are that in the intervening night of 8th and 9th August, 2004, the claimant was travelling in the dumper bearing Registration No. MP 07 G-5684, which was being driven by Udai Singh (driver). The said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which it turned turtle, causing an accident. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries to his leg. After the occurrence of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle absconded from the spot, leaving the vehicle at the place of occurrence. The injured claimant was thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Etawah, where he was provided primary medical treatment and was subsequently admitted for further treatment. The matter was reported to Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, and an offence bearing Crime No. 56/2004 was stated to have been registered. After investigation and other formalities, the police filed a charge sheet. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Non-applicants therein filed their written statement and denied all averments. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and after considering the evidence of both parties, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,90,000/- in favour of the claimant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant contends that the Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding the amount of compensation. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side, and hence, it is prayed that the compensation amount be enhanced and a just and reasonable amount of compensation may be awarded.

5. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the claimant has failed to establish the factum of the accident, and that he was injured in the said accident, as no police report or investigation report has been filed. On the contrary, the owner of the offending vehicle has specifically come forward with the allegation that the claimant did not sustain any injury in the turn down of the dumper, nor did he receive any injury in the road accident. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has awarded compensation which is not just and proper. The assessment of the income of the claimant made by the Claims Tribunal is also on the higher side and unreasonable. Hence, the award deserves to be modified. It is further contended that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a genuine driving licence, while the said licence was renewed four times by R.T.O. Gwalior. Additionally, the statement of Bhagwan Singh (clerk of RTO Dho