IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 1583 of 2011 SMT. TEJLIBAI AND 6 ORS. AND OTHERS Versus MUKAM SINGH AND ANR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Verma - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Manoj Jain - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 29.04.2011 passed in Claim Case No. 78/2009. The challenge is on two counts, first that the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation and second that the quantum of compensation has wrongly been assessed by the Claims Tribunal.

2. I.A.No. 12155/2025 is an application for dispensing with service on the owner and driver of the insured vehicle.

3. In view of the fact that despite paying process fees on several occasions, respondents No. 1 and 2 are deliberately avoiding service of notice of this appeal and also it is seen from the record that the appellants have repeatedly sent notices on the address which was recorded in the claim petition before the Tribunal, the service was affected on the same address in the claim petition before the Tribunal and it is the case of the appellants that respondents are still residing on the same address but they are deliberately avoiding the service, the application for dispensing with service on respondents No. 1 and 2 is allowed and the appeal is heard in their absence.

4. The short facts of the case are that on 21.05.2009 at around 04:30 in the evening, deceased Paru was going in jeep from Rampura to his home Choti Heerapur. When the jeep reached near Dawar Petrol Pump, the pick up vehicle bearing registration No. MP-45-G-0389, being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner ran into the jeep in which deceased Paru was travelling due to which he sustained grievous injuries, he succumbed to those injuries ultimately. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the appellants/claimants claiming compensation for the death of Paru before the Claims Tribunal. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased, on the date of accident was earning Rs. 150/- per day and additionally an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from agricultural work. The Tribunal after recording evidence concluded that it was the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle which caused the accident, hence a total compensation of Rs. 1,84,500/- was awarded.

5. The Tribunal while quantifying the amount of compensation has taken the income of the deceased Paru at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on notional basis. The insurance company was exonerated from liability to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid licence so also the absence of fitness certificate.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms of the insurance policy. He points out that it has come on record that the driving licence (Exh. D/7) was available which was a licence for LMV. The vehicle in question was a pick up having weight less than 7500 kg. As such in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case o f Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 as well as M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95, the person holding LMV licence is eligible to drive such vehicle. Hence, on this ground exoneration could not have been done.

7. As regards fitness certificate, learned counsel for the appellants submits that valid driving licence was available and even if it is taken to be true that there was absence of a valid fitness certificate, pay and recover should have been directed. As regards the quantum of compensation, learned counsel submits that the claim before t