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

th

ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 3670 of 2023 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD RAJIV NAGAR VIDISHA Versus SMT RUKMNI BAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shrinivas Gajendragadkar - Advocate for appellant- Insurance Company.

Shri Anshu Gupta- Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3- claimants.

Shri Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi- Advocate for respondent No.4.

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal, filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises from the award dated April 6, 2023, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Vidisha, in Claim Case No.34 of 2020.

2. The appellant- Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal contending that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident or, at the very least, contributed to it through negligence. Learned Counsel for Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal committed a legal error by saddling the Insurance Company with the liability. It is argued that at the time of the accident, the deceased, Babulal, was under the influence of alcohol and was driving an overloaded motorcycle without a valid driving licence. It is further contended that the truck was parked properly on its side with indicators and parking lights on, making it visible in the motorcycle's headlight, and the driver of the offending truck has clearly stated this fact in his evidence. It is submitted that the accident was a direct result of deceased's high speed and intoxicated state; thus, the claim for compensation was not tenable. In support of contention regarding contributory negligence, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajrani and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2009)

SCC 654, wherein it was observed as under:-

"16. So far as the issue of 'contributory negligence' is concerned, we may notice that the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the total compensation on the ground that deceased had contributed to the accident. The same, we find, has been upheld by the High Court. This court in Usha Rajkhowa and Ors. v. Paramount Industries and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.1088 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (C) No.16647 of 2008)] discussed the issue of contributory negligence noticing, inter alia, earlier decisions on the same topic. It was held that:

10. The question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver in case of collision was considered by this Court in Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455. That was also a case of collision between a car and a truck. It was observed in Para 8:

''8........The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as 'negligence'. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression 'contributory negligence', it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong.''

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for claimants contended that the burden of proving sole or contributory negligence lay strictly upon Insurance Company. It is submitted that Insurance Company failed to produce any substantive evidence before the Claims Tribunal to prove that the deceased was intoxicated or that his conduct materially contributed to the collision.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Upon perusal of record, specifically spot map (Ex. D12) and the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Ram Asre Pasi (AW-2), this Court finds that the offending truck was stationary in a lane meant for two-wheelers between 9:00 PM and 9:30 PM. The Investigating Officer categorically deposed in Paragraph 3 of his evidence that durin