Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Singh vs Ballu Prajapati on 16 April, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12322
1 MA-404-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 16 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 404 of 2019
NARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
BALLU PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for appellants/claimants.
Shri Badri Nath Malhotra-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance
Company.
ORDER
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 29/08/2018 passed
by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as “the Claims Tribunal”), District Morena (M.P.), in Claim Case No. 273/2017.
The appeal has been filed on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, seeking
enhancement thereof, and also assailing the finding of the Claims Tribunal
whereby the deceased has been held to be 50% contributory negligent in the
accident.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.06.2017 at about 10:00
PM, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle on the correct side of the road
at a slow speed. When he reached near the Sugar Factory, a motorcycle bearing
registration No. MP-06-MF-2926, driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 4/18/2026
11:46:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12322
2 MA-404-2019
deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment in the hospital. An
FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation,
a charge-sheet was filed against him.
3. The legal representatives of deceased Atar Singh instituted a claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The respondents appeared
before the Claims Tribunal and filed their written statement denying the averments
made in the claim petition.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed issues, recorded
evidence and, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned award granting
compensation in favour of the claimants. The Claims Tribunal further held that the
deceased was 50% contributorily negligent in causing the accident.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal contending
that the Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award without proper appreciation
of law and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the same
deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that as per the evidence available on
record, respondent No.2, being the driver of the offending vehicle, was solely
responsible for the accident. However, the Claims Tribunal, without any
substantial evidence and merely on the basis of assumptions drawn from the spot
map, held that the deceased was 50% negligent. It is therefore prayed that the
finding of contributory negligence be set aside and the compensation be enhanced
as the amount awarded is wholly inadequate.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the
impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims
Tribunal.
8. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 4/18/2026
11:46:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12322
3 MA-404-2019
Claims Tribunal regarding 50% contributory negligence of the deceased is
sustainable in the eyes of law.
9. Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the Insurance Company, as well as
the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, have failed to adduce any oral or
documentary evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. In the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle neither lodged any
FIR nor entered the witness box to explain the manner in which the accident
occurred. Being the best witness, his failure to depose warrants drawing of an
adverse inference against him.
10. The Claims Tribunal has held the deceased to be 50% contributorily
negligent solely on the basis of the spot map (Ex.P/3). Though the spot map
indicates a head-on collision, the same has not been proved in accordance with law
as neither the Investigating Officer nor any independent witness was examined by
the respondents. Therefore, the spot map alone cannot form the basis for
determining contributory negligence.
11. The Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment in Bijoy Kumar
Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, 2006 ACJ 1058 SCC wherein it is held that
in case of head-on collision, both drivers may be held equally responsible in
absence of evidence to the contrary. However, in the present case, the testimony of
eye-witness Ramvaran Singh (A.W.2) clearly indicates that the offending vehicle
dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from the side. Thus, the said judgment does
not apply to the facts of the present case.
12. In the case of Syed Sadiq and Ors. vs. Divisonal Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2014 ACJ 627 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 28,
held as under:-
“28. On the matter of extent of contribution to the accident, it is held by
the Tribunal that the appellants/claimants herein should have takenSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 4/18/2026
11:46:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:123224 MA-404-2019
utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at the spot of the
accident, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants/claimants were
moving on the middle of the road which led to the accident. Therefore,
the Tribunal concluded that though the tractor has been charge sheeted
under sections 279 and 338 of IPC, but given the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants also contributed to
the accident to the extent of 25%. The High Court without assigning any
reason concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to
contributory negligence. We find it pertinent to observe that both the
Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellants/ claimants
in these appeals liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived
at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident
took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to
prove the same. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contribution
of the appellants/claimants in the accident is not proved by the
respondents by producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the
Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which has been upheld by
the High Court, is set aside.”
13. In light of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
respondents have failed to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. Consequently, the finding of the Claims Tribunal attributing 50%
contributory negligence to the deceased is hereby set aside . The Insurance
Company, along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, shall be
jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation, with the primary
liability resting upon the Insurance Company.
14. So far as enhancement of compensation in favour of claimants is concerned,
it is evident that claimants failed to produce substantial documentary evidence
regarding his income. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Sukhdevi v.
Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways , 2008
ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi , (2008) 3 ACC 134 ,
where it is held that in absence of documentary proof, income is to be assessed as
per the minimum wages applicable, this Court deems it appropriate to assess
income of deceased as that of an unskilled worker. Accordingly, his monthly
income is assessed at Rs.7,125/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 4/18/2026
11:46:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12322
5 MA-404-2019
15. With regard to future prospects, in light of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700, the
claimants are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%. Further, as per Sarla
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121,
considering the age of deceased, the appropriate multiplier of 18 has been rightly
applied by Claims Tribunal. Also, in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur
and Others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131, the claimants are entitled to get
compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and since deceased
was bachelor, therefore, 1/2 of his income must be deducted for his personal
expenses.
16. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the
following heads:-
HEAD AMOUNT
Income Rs. 7,125 x 12= Rs. 85,500/- P.A.
After adding Future Prospects @40% Rs. 34,200/-
After deducting dependency 1/2 Rs.59,850/-
Multiplier 18 Rs.10,77,300/-
Other Heads:-
Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000 × 2 = Rs.80,000/-
Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.11,87,300/-
17. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the present
case comes to Rs.11,87,300/- as against the sum of Rs.7,50,400/- awarded by the
learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs. 4,36,900/- over and above the amount already awarded by the
Claims Tribunal.
18. Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 4/18/2026
11:46:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12322
6 MA-404-2019
award is modified. The compensation is enhanced by Rs.4,36,900/- and enhanced
amount shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Claims Tribunal
from the date of depositing of court fee. All other conditions imposed by the
Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
19. In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of the appeal, the
claimants- appellants shall deposit the differential Court fee (if not already paid) within
a period of one month from today and furnish proof of such payment before the
Registry. Upon compliance, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this order.
20. In view of the foregoing, the miscellaneous appeal stands modified and is
partly allowed accordingly.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA
Signing time: 4/18/2026
11:46:53 AM
