IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 250 of 2014 DAMODAR AND OTHERS Versus SMT. MAMTA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.P.Gupta - Advocate for the appellants/owner and driver Shri Bhagwan Das Verma-Advocate for respondent No.1/claimant.

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 251 of 2014 DAMODAR AND OTHERS Versus SUNIL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.P. Gupta-Advocate for appellants/owner and driver.

Shri Arvind Kumar Agarwal-Advocate for respondent No.4/Insurance company.

Shri B.D. Verma-Advoate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants.

MISC. APPEAL No. 270 of 2014 SMT. MAMTA Versus DAMODAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri B.D. Verma- Advocate for appellant/claimant.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

Shri R.P. Gupta-Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/owner and driver.

ORDER Miscellaneous Appeals, namely MA No. 250/2014, MA No. 251/2014 and MA No. 270/2014, arise out of the common award dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Third Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 95/2013 and Claim Case No. 33/2013. 2. MA No. 250/2014 and MA No. 251/2014 have been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, seeking exoneration from liability to pay compensation to the claimants. MA No. 270/2014 has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

3. Since all the appeals arise out of the same award and involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the owner and driver in MA No. 250/2014 and MA No. 251/2014 contended that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was having a valid permit, and the Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding otherwise. It was submitted that the finding of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy is erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by the owner and driver.

6. In MA No. 251/2014, the claimants have filed a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. It was submitted that in the absence of documentary evidence of income, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income as per the Minimum Wages Act. It was further contended that even if the offending vehicle was without a valid permit, the deceased being a third party, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver. Accordingly, prayer for enhancement of compensation was made.

7. Similarly, MA No. 270/2014 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and submits that Insurance Company be directed to pay compensation to the claimant with liberty to recover the same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award as well as the record of the Claims Tribunal, this Court proceeds to decide the appeals.

9. It is undisputed that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid permit.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the owner and driver submitted that even if there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, an order of pay and recover ought to have been passed, making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver.

11. This Court is of the considered view that the purpose of issuing directions for pay and recover are to save the claimant from unnecessarily harassment of institu