IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 2658 of 2024 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Versus SURAJ SINGH VARKADE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini - Advocate for respondent No.1.

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 3444 of 2024 SURAJ SINGH BARKADE Versus SATISH LODHI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini - Advocate for appellant.

Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah - Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

Reserved on : 03/12/2025 Delivered on : 06/02/2026 ORDER Appellant/Insurance company has filed M.A. No.2658/2024 under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging award dated 03.02.2024 passed by Member, First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla, District Mandla in Claim Case No.189/2022, whereby respondent No.1/claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,63,000/- and respondent No.1/claimant has filed M.A. No.3444/2024 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in aforesaid claim case.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.02.2020 at about 02:00 PM, the respondent No.1/claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-20-KN-6274 from Dalakhapa to Niwas. When they reached the ghat below village Pipariya, a car bearing registration No. MP-20-CJ-3457, driven by the accused/respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from the Niwas main road and hit the motorcycle, due to which, the respondent No.1/claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right leg, knee, both hands, and other parts of the body, resulting in permanent disability. FIR bearing Crime No. 31/2020 was registered against the driver of the car at Police Station Niwas, District Mandla, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding the Insurance Company liable, as the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle has not been satisfactorily proved. It is contended that there is no credible or independent evidence establishing that vehicle No. MP-20-CJ-3457 caused the accident. The appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in law and on facts in assessing the Respondent/Claimant’s income, loss of earning capacity, and awarding compensation. The 40% permanent disability certificate (Exhibit P-53) issued by Dr. Suraj Singh Marawi is explicitly not for medico-legal purposes. Consequently, there is no valid medical evidence to prove permanent disablement. Further, the Tribunal incorrectly applied a multiplier of 15 instead of 14 for the Claimant’s age. Even assuming a 40% disability of the right leg, established practice allows only 50% of limb disability for whole-body earning capacity, making the loss of earning capacity awarded excessive. The involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is doubtful. The F.I.R. was lodged by the Claimant’s cousin, who did not appear as a witness, and no independent eyewitness corroborated the claim. Counsel for appellant placed reliance on the judgments/orders passed in cases of Anil v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 2 SCC 482, Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Kamlabai Kachhi passed in M.A. No.4825/2018, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munni Bai Chouhan, SCC OnLine MP 5339, it has been held that claims based on delayed or collusive F.I.R.s are highly suspect, therefore, award passed by Tribunal in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1 deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant in M.A.

No.2658/2024 and appellant/claimant in M.A. No.3444/2024 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held the accident to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the compensation awarded is inadequate and not sufficient. It is submitted that Claims