SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4174

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Kamini Bee – Appellant
Versus
Salman Thru. Natural Guardian Father Mo. Aslam – Respondent
MA 2285/2016



Advocates:
Jeev Raj Paliwal,

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3458

1 MA-2285-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 2285 of 2016

SMT. KAMINI BEE AND OTHERS

Versus

SALMAN THRU. NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER MO. ASLAM AND

OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Himanshu Paliwal - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anil Kumar Goyal - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

ORDER

This appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

is preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned award dated

20.01.2016 passed by the 16th Member of the MACT, Indore in claim case

No.102/2013. By the impugned award the learned Tribunal allowed the

claim case and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.6,11,000/- alongwith

interest @ 6% p.a.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 05.01.2010 at around 5:00 pm,

the deceased met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of

respondent No.1 as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died

on the next day during treatment. Thereafter, an application under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant seeking

compensation to the tune of Rs.22,50,000/-. Learned Tribunal found that the

accident was caused by respondent No.1 due to his rash and negligent driving

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VATAN

SHRIVASTAVA

Signing time: 20-02-2026

17:11:01

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3458

2 MA-2285-2016

of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 on the

fateful day. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation to the tune of

Rs.6,11,000/- against the claim of Rs.22,50,000/-. The Tribunal has

exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation

as the driver was minor.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Tribunal has

committed error in not awarding the amount under the head of future

prospect contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 4 ACJ 270. The

tribunal has also not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate and

loss of consortium. He further submitted that as per the law laid down in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swarn Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297,

the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants

and recover the same from the owner and driver in case of no valid driving

license.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company

refuting the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does

not require any interference by this Court under this appeal. Counsel for the

respondent has further submitted that Tribunal has given finding in respect

for the exoneration of the Insurance company. It is not in disputed that the

respondent no.1 was responsible for causing the accident on the fateful day

and it is admitted fact that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent

No.3. The only question for determination in this appeal is that whether the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VATAN

SHRIVASTAVA

Signing time: 20-02-2026

17:11:01

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3458

3 MA-2285-2016

amount awarded by the Tribunal requires modification or not and whether

and the Tribunal has properly exonerate the Insurance company or not.

5. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the parties and going to the material evidence available on record, this

Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in not calculating the

amount in the head of future prospects as per the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, (supra). The claimant is entitled for the

40% future prospects amount and he is also entitled in the head of

consortium and loss of estate.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court finds that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi (supra), and Sarla Verma & Ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top