Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Office … vs Deepmala on 23 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
1 MA-4752-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 4752 of 2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. OFFICE AT B.G. ROAD GUNA
Versus
DEEPMALA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and
5.
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6
and 7.
Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2
and 4.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.03.2024 passed
by the Fourth Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Guna
(M.P.) in Claim Case No. 108/2023, seeking exoneration from its liability as
well as reduction of the compensation amount awarded to the claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5 preferred a
claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking
compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Anil
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
2 MA-4752-2024
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). The deceased died in a road traffic
accident on 06-05-2023, allegedly involving a tractor bearing registration
No. MP 08 AC 3149, which was attached to an uninsured trolley. On the
fateful day, the tractor was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.
The claimants submitted that the deceased was 29 years old at the time of the
accident and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as a motor mechanic at a
TVS Showroom.
3. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed their written statements, and the
appellant insurance company also opposed the claim application on the
grounds that no accident occurred involving the vehicle as stated in the claim
petition. The earnings and dependency of the claimants were also denied, and
other defenses were raised, praying for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating
the facts and the material on record, allowed the claim application, holding
the claimants/respondents no. 1 to 5 entitled to a compensation of Rs.
44,93,000/- along with interest.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the Insurance Company
has preferred this appeal, submitting that the award passed by the Claims
Tribunal is contrary to the settled provisions of law and inconsistent with the
facts, circumstances, and material on record. It is further submitted that the
Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the legal aspect that the deceased
was struck by the trolley, which was uninsured. It is contended that the
Tribunal failed to consider the legal requirement that the trolley must be
separately registered and insured. Since the trolley was not insured under the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
3 MA-4752-2024
policy, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company for an
accident involving the uninsured trolley. Moreover, it is argued that when
both the tractor and trolley are involved in an accident, both the tractor and
the trailer must be insured in order to hold the Insurance Company liable. As
such, the Insurance Company should not be held liable for the accident
caused by the uninsured trolley, and the impugned award deserves to be set
aside, exonerating the appellant Insurance Company. It is also submitted that
the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 20,000/-
per month without any substantial evidence, and that the dependency has
been assessed on a higher side. The Insurance Company further contends
that, as per the judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , personal expenses should be
deducted at 1/3rd, not 1/4th, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal.
6. In support of their submission, counsel for the Insurance Company
has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dhondubai vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude thr. LRs. , 2023 ACJ
1979, and IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD vs. Kumar Singh & Ors. ,
SLP No. CC 12585/2012.
7. Per contra, counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award
passed by the Claims Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the Claims Tribunal.
9. The first issue to be decided is whether the Insurance Company can
be exonerated from liability on the grounds that the trolley attached to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
4 MA-4752-2024
tractor was uninsured.
10. It is undisputed that the tractor bearing Registration No. MP 08 AC
3149 was attached to an uninsured trolley. The deceased got struck by the
trolley while it was being reversed, resulting in his death. The tractor was
insured, but the trolley was not.
11. As per Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a trolley is
considered a vehicle and must be registered under Section 61 of the MV Act.
Furthermore, Section 146 of the MV Act mandates that every vehicle,
including a trolley, must be insured. In the present case, the tractor was
insured, but the trolley was not. However, it is crucial to note that the
accident occurred due to the tractor pulling the trolley, and it was the tractor’s
operation that led to the accident.
Section 2 (28) of Motor Vehicles Act is reads as under:-
(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically
propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of
propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal
source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been
attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon
fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a
factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less
than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding1
[twenty-five cubic centimetres];
Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reads as under:-
61. Application of Chapter to trailers.–(1) The provisions of this
Chapter shall apply to the registration of trailers as they apply to
the registration of any other motor vehicle.
(2) The registration mark assigned to a trailer shall be displayed in
such manner on the side of the drawing vehicle, as may be
prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) No person shall drive a motor vehicle to which a trailer is or
trailers are attached unless the registration mark of the motor
vehicle so driven is displayed on the trailer or on the last trailer in
the train, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
5 MA-4752-2024
by the Central Government.
Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is read as under:-
146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.–(1) No
person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any
other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there
is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or
that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance
complying with the requirements of this Chapter:
[Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry,
dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of
insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of
1991).]
Explanation.–A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid
employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the
vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not
be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he
knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in
force.
(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the
Central Government or a State Government and used for
Government purposes unconnected with any commercial
enterprise.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the
operation of sub-section (1) any vehicle owned by any of the
following authorities, namely:–
(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle
is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial
enterprise;
(b) any local authority;
(c) any State transport undertaking:
Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such
authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by
that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf
under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of
any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in
its employment may incur to third parties.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, “appropriate
Government” means the Central Government or a State
Government, as the case may be, and–
(i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central
Government or any State Government, means the Central
Government or that State Government;
(ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the
Central Government and one or more State Governments, means
the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking or any
local authority, means that Government which has control over
that undertaking or authority.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
6 MA-4752-2024
12. But in the present case, vehicle involved in the accident was the
tractor, which was insured. The trolley, although uninsured, was attached to
the tractor, and it is not the case that the accident was solely caused by the
trolley. The tractor’s actions, including the reckless driving and reversing,
were the proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the liability of the
tractor and its insurer extends to the accident caused by the tractor, even
though the trolley was uninsured.
13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal
rightly held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. The tractor,
which was insured, played a direct role in the accident, and the insurer of the
tractor is liable for the compensation despite the trolley being uninsured. No
illegality or perversity has been committed by the Claims Tribunal in
holding the Insurance Company liable.
14. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in regard to
exoneration of Insurance company from its liability.
15. So far as contention of appellant/Insurance Company is concerned
regarding quantum of compensation, it is submitted by appellant that the
Claims Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the
deceased- Anil to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month without any substantial
documents. It is further submitted that the claims tribunal has erred in
deducting towards personal expenses i.e 1/4th. As per the judgment in Sarla
Verma (supra), 1/3rd of personal expenses must be deducted only.
16. On perusal of impugned Award it was found that claimants have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
7 MA-4752-2024
unable to adduced any substantial evidence in regard to the income of the
deceased – Anil, but the Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased was a
skilled labour and assumed his income to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month.
In the case of Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2021)
2 SCC 166, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if claimant(s) are failed to
produce any documentary evidence in regard to income of the deceased, but
from statement of the witnesses, documentary evidence and circumstances of
the accident, it is apparent that deceased was comparatively more
educationally qualified and skilled, then his income shall be assessed on the
basis of Minimum Wages Act.
17. In the present case, claimants are unable to adduce any substantial
evidence in regard to the income of the deceased, but it was found that
deceased was a skilled worker with an ITI qualification, and in the absence
of evidence regarding his income, his earnings should be assessed as per the
Minimum Wages Act for a skilled person, which amounts to Rs. 11,885/- per
month. Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding the income
of the deceased is set aside. In the considered opinion of this Court, for
calculating the compensation, income of the deceased be assessed to the tune
of Rs. 11,885/- per month as per Minimum Wages Act of a skilled person.
18. Further, so far as contention of appellant is concerned regarding
deduction of personal expenses, the Claims Tribunal in para 55 of the
impugned Award has held that wife, children and mother of the deceased
were dependence upon the deceased. Thus, as per decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) , 1/3rd deduction should be applied
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
8 MA-4752-2024
towards personal expenses, but the Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted
1/4th towards personal expenses, therefore, compensation must be assessed
by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Hence, findings of the Claims
Tribunal in this regard is also set aside.
19. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation
under the following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs.11,885 X12= Rs.1,42,620/- P.A.
Future Prospects@40% Rs.1,99,668/-
Dependency 1/3 Rs.1,33,112/-
Multiplier 17 Rs.22,62,904/-
Other Heads:-
Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000 X 4= Rs.1,76,000/-
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses Rs.33,000/-
Total = Rs.24,71,904/-
20. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the
present case comes to Rs.24,71,904/- as against the sum of Rs.44,93,000/-
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation amount
is reduced from Rs.44,93,000/- to Rs.24,71,904/-. The aforesaid reduced amount
shall also bear interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of the
filing of the claim petition till its realization. Insurance Company is entitled to get
excessive amount (if already deposited) from the Claims Tribunal in accordance
with law.
21. In the result, the instant appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly
allowed and stands disposed of to the extent indicated herein-above.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135
9 MA-4752-2024
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 2/25/2026
6:17:15 PM
