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) 4441

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ramdayal Carpenter – Appellant
Versus
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
MA 293/2023



Advocates:
Harish Kumar Gilke,

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760

1 MA-293-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 293 of 2023

RAMDAYAL CARPENTER AND OTHERS

Versus

IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Appearance:

Shri Abhishek Gilke - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Sudarshan Pandit and Shri Rajesh Pandit - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Heard on : 06.10.2025

Pronounced on : 29.01.2026

ORDER

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

brevity 'MVA') filed by the appellants/claimants raises a significant question

that in case of death of owner and his wife in an accident involving insured

vehicle, if a claim is filed by their children for the death of wife and not the

owner without impleading anyone else except the insurance company, then

whether such claim is maintainable or not? The challenge is made to the

impugned award dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim

Case No. 160/2019.

2. The facts of the present case are that on 04.03.2019 deceased

Ratanbai was going along with her husband Shivnarayan on the insured

vehicle i.e. motor cycle bearing registration No.MP 42 MF 2391 as a pillion

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SREEVIDYA

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:35:30 PM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760

2 MA-293-2023

rider from Khilchipur to their village Paldiya. At about 7:00 pm in the

evening, when they reached near Devmaharaj place at village Lima Chouhan

between Sandawta Sarangpur road, Shivnarayan was driving the motor cycle

in a rash and negligent manner because of which the bike got disbalanced

resulting in felling down of Ratanbai. She sustained grievous injuries and

was tried to be taken to hospital however, she died on the way. The

rider/owner of the vehicle Shivnarayan also sustained grievous injuries and

was taken to Gokuldas Hospital for treatment. But he succumbed to the

injuries and died during treatment. As such the owner of the vehicle and his

wife died in the accident. The owner was the rider and wife was the pillion

rider. The appellants/claimants are the son and daughter of the above two

deceased persons. They filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MVA

for death of Ratanbai. It is to be taken note of that they did not file any claim

petition for death of owner of the vehicle Shivnarayan but for the death of

their mother Ratanbai who was the pillion rider.

3. The Claims Tribunal recorded the evidence and concluded that

Ratanbai died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident caused due

to rash and negligent driving of Shivnarayan. It also concluded that the

vehicle was duly ensured with the respondent/insurance company and there

was no breach of the terms of insurance policy found by the Tribunal. The

Tribunal then quantified the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.

10,79,672/-. However, while considering the issue of payment, the

compensation was denied by holding in para 52 of the impugned award that

the deceased Ratanbai was the wife of deceased Shivnarayan who was the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SREEVIDYA

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:35:30 PM

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760

3 MA-293-2023

owner. Thus, on the death of Shivnarayan, Ratanbai will become owner of

the vehicle being his legal representative but as Ratanbai has also died thus,

the claimants will become owner of the vehicle and consequently, Ratanbai

being not the third party, the insurance company is not responsible for paying

compensation. As such, the claim petition was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants has raised

a plea that merely being related to the insured does not mean that the said

person is not a third party unless they are the insured themselves or their

representative. He submits that the present is a case of peculiar facts. In the

present case there is owner of the vehicle who died in the accident and wife

of the owner of the vehicle who also died in the same accident and children

of bo

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