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

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 2486 of 2012 MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Versus SMT. JAMUNABAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Amitabh Gupta - Advocate for respondent No.1 to 3.

Reserved on: 10/12/2025 Delivered on: 23/02/2026 ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging award dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim Case No.896/2011 and praying for following relief:-

It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and appellant/Insurance Company be exonerated thereby dismissing the claim petition. In the alternative, awarded amount be reduced. Also apportion amount be reduced for contributory negligence. Any other relief deemed fit be also granted in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 13.01.2011 at about 10:30 P.M., the deceased was going from Nehru Market Barkheda to his home Barkheda Pathani on his motorcycle and as soon as he reached the Tiraha before the turn of the girl school, the driver of an Indica Car No.MP-04-CC-6198 coming from Barkheda Pathani side was driving the car very fast, negligently and carelessly and hit the deceased's car with great force. Due to strong collision, the deceased suffered serious head injuries. The deceased was taken to Kasturba Hospital BHEL, Bhopal in a seriously injured condition where he died during treatment on 22.01.2011. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Hamidia Hospital Bhopal.

3. Learned counsel for appellant/insurance company submitted that the offending vehicle has been implanted in the accident when the criminal papers as well the deposition clearly establishes the fact that the deceased Jasmat Umre died because of the motorcycle getting slipped while the same was being ridden, but just to extort undue compensation from the appellant/insurance company, the insured vehicle has been implanted. It is further submitted that the impugned award is contrary to the evidence on record and settled principles of law. Exhibit P-4, forming part of the challan and being a public document, clearly records that the accident occurred due to slipping of the motorcycle. The Learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving this material document without cogent reasons. Further, the PMLC Report (Ex. P-6) indicates that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, which was not properly considered while determining negligence. The accident occurred on 13.01.2011, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 16.03.2011, after an unexplained delay of over two months. No statement of the injured was recorded despite hospital intimation. The charge sheet, seizure, and related proceedings were conducted in haste on 17.03.2011. The unexplained delay, procedural irregularities, and material discrepancies in witness depositions create serious doubt regarding the alleged involvement of the insured vehicle. The Learned Tribunal further erred in discarding the testimony of defence witnesses and in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs,20,544/- per month without reliable proof, contrary to the principles laid down in Syed Basheer Ahamed & Anr. v. Mohd. Jameel & Anr., (2009) ACC 29 SC). The award of compensation is excessive and contrary to the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur & Ors., which mandates that compensation must be just and reasonable and not a source of profit. In these circumstnaces, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Alternatively, the compensation awarded is liable to be substantially reduced, including appropriate deduction on account of contributory negligence.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants submitted that the impugned award is based on proper app