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. 344 of 2009

INDRAJEET SINGH("D")TH:LRS NARENDRA AND OTHERS

Versus

GUDDI DEVI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ajay Singh Rathore - Advocate for legal heirs of owner of the

vehicle- appellant No.1 Indrajeet Singh (since dead) and driver of the

vehicle- appellant No.2- Gendalal.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate on behalf of Shri Kuldeep Singh-

Advocate for respondent No.5/Insurance Company.

Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta-Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and

4/claimants.

Respondent No.1- claimant has died during penency of appeal and her

name has been deleted.

WITH

MISC. APPEAL No. 390 of 2009

GUDDI DEVI AND OTHERS

Versus

INDRAJEET SINGH (D) LRS NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri R.P. Gupta- Advocate for appellants/claimants

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate on behalf of Shri Kuldeep Singh-Advocate on

behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

Shri Ajay Singh Rathore-Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (owner

and driver of vehicle).

ORDER MA No. 344/2009 has been preferred by the appellants, namely the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, challenging the award to the extent the Insurance Company has been exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

2. MA No. 390/2009 has been preferred by the claimants on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

3. The facts of both the appeals are identical and they arise out of the common award dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Lahar, District Bhind, in Claim Case No. 05/2008. Therefore, both the appeals were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

4. The necessary facts for adjudication of both the appeals, in brief, are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of Charan Singh in a motor accident. It was alleged that on 06.12.2005 at about 12:00 noon, in village Machhand, when Charan Singh was standing near the flour mill of Banwari Kachhi on the main road, appellant No.2/driver Gendalal, while driving the offending tractor bearing registration No. MP 30/M-0969 rashly and negligently, dashed against Charan Singh, resulting in his death on the spot. It was further alleged that at the time of the accident, appellant No.1 Indrajeet Singh (since deceased) was the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.5, New India Assurance Company Limited. FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased, Ramdevi, at Police Station Raun, District Bhind. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants filed their written statements before the Claims Tribunal and denied the allegations.

5. The Claims Tribunal, after framing issues and appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,56,180/-. The Insurance Company was exonerated from liability and the owner and driver were directed to pay the compensation.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel appearing for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in absolving the Insurance Company from liability. It was contended that the two eye-witnesses named in the FIR, namely Karan Singh Kachhi and Munna Singh Kachhi, were not examined, and instead Tilak Singh (A.W.2) was examined, whose testimony was not relied upon by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the deceased was standing on the roadside and was not sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Hence, the Insurance Company ought not to have been exonerated.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that Ramdevi, who lodged the FIR, was not an eye-witness and her evidence was hearsay. It was contended that the evidence on record estab