Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheru Khan vs Ashok Singh on 9 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
1 MA-279-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
MISC. APPEAL No. 279 of 2006
SHERU KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
ASHOK SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Meena Singhal - Advocate for the appellants/claimants.
Shri R.P. Gupta - Advocate for the respondent No.1-Owner.
None for the respondent No.2, though served.
Shri B.K. Agarwal - Advocate for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 802 of 2006
ASHOK SINGH SIKARWAR
Versus
SHOROO KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P. Gupta - Advocate for the appellant-Owner.
Smt. Meena Singhal - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5/claimants.
None for the respondent No.6, though served.
Shri B.K. Agarwal - Advocate for the respondent No.7/Insurance Company.
Reserved on : 01/07/2026
Delivered on : 09/07/2026
ORDER
M.A. No. 279/2006 has been preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 24.12.2005 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim
Case No. 97/2004. By the said award, the Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation payable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
2 MA-279-2006
to the claimants at Rs. 2,98,000/-. However, holding that the deceased, Shanu Khan, had
contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%, the Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.
1,49,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition until its realization.
2. M.A. No. 802/2006 has been preferred by the owner, assailing the finding of
contributory negligence recorded against the driver of the bus and the direction fastening
liability upon the appellant-owner by directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in
the first instance, with liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the
offending vehicle.
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, respondent No.3/Insurance Company
has also preferred cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure
in M.A.No.279/2006, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal as well as the findings recorded therein.
4. Since both the appeals and the cross-objections arise out of the common award
passed by the Claims Tribunal and involve common questions of fact and law, they were
heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
5. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from M.A. No.279/2006.
6. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, in short, are that the claimants filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of
the deceased, Shanu Khan. It was pleaded that on 20th September, 2004, the deceased was
travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. MP-06/B-0684. When the bus
reached Baghchini Tiraha, he climbed onto the roof to check his luggage. At that moment, the
driver of the bus, Sughar Singh, allegedly started the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner,
causing the deceased to strike against a tree, fall down, and sustain fatal injuries.
Consequently, a criminal case vide Crime No. 145/2004 was registered at Police Station
Baghchini, and proceedings were instituted before the Court of JMFC, Joura. The claimants
claimed a total compensation of Rs.21,40,000/-.
7. The Insurance Company contested the claim, contending that the deceased climbed
onto the roof without the knowledge of the driver or was travelling thereon in direct violation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
3 MA-279-2006
of the permit and licence conditions of the vehicle. It was further contended that the deceased
was guilty of contributory negligence, which absolved the Insurance Company of its liability.
Furthermore, it was pleaded that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased, that his
occupation and income had been exaggerated, and that the driver did not possess a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
8. After evaluating the pleadings of both sides, the Claims Tribunal framed the relevant
issues and passed the impugned award. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award,
both the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle have preferred the present appeals.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the award passed by the
learned Claims Tribunal is challenged primarily on the grounds of: (i) the quantum of
compensation; (ii) the finding recorded with regard to the contributory negligence of the
deceased; (iii) the liability fastened upon the owner; and (iv) the finding recorded by the
Claims Tribunal permitting the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in the first
instance and recover the same from the owner. It is further submitted that the income of the
deceased has been assessed at Rs.3,125/- per month by treating him as a mason earning
Rs.125/- per day. However, while determining the monthly income, the Claims Tribunal has
taken into consideration wages only for 25 days, whereas wages for the entire 30 days ought
to have been taken into consideration. It is further submitted that no amount has been awarded
towards future prospects. The deceased was aged about 20 years and, therefore, the multiplier
of 18 ought to have been applied by the Claims Tribunal. It is further submitted that under the
head of loss of consortium, only a sum of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded, whereas all the
claimants are entitled to compensation under the said head at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each in
terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the deceased remained
hospitalized for a period of two days; however, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded
under the head of pain and suffering. Under the heads of funeral expenses and other
conventional heads, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded, whereas the same is required
to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Under the head of loss of estate, no amount has been awarded.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
4 MA-279-2006
Accordingly, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves
suitable enhancement.
11. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that no written statement was
filed before the Claims Tribunal by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Their right
to file the written statement was closed in terms of the order dated 29.04.2005. They were
proceeded ex parte and did not lead any evidence before the Claims Tribunal. By taking this
Court through the FIR dated 21.09.2004 (Ex.P2) and the charge-sheet (Ex.P1), learned
counsel for the claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in concluding that the
deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus. The recitals contained in the charge-sheet
indicate that the deceased was travelling inside the bus and, when the bus halted at Baghchini
Tiraha, he climbed onto the roof to look for his luggage. At that very moment, the driver
negligently moved the bus, as a result of which the deceased fell down and subsequently
succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
12. By taking this Court through the evidence of Dilshad Mohammad (AW-1), learned
counsel for the claimants submits that the said witness has clearly stated that the deceased
was travelling inside the bus. No witness was produced by the Insurance Company before the
Claims Tribunal to establish that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus. It is
further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in placing reliance upon the
documents pertaining to the criminal case, namely the FIR, to conclude that the deceased was
travelling on the roof of the bus. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and Others, 2021 ACJ 2558,
particularly paragraph 8 thereof, it is submitted that the documents pertaining to the criminal
case cannot be given undue weight while deciding a claim arising out of a motor accident. It
is, therefore, submitted that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard
deserves to be interfered with.
13. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the conditions enumerated
under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act do not permit the Insurance Company to raise
such a defence. By taking this Court through Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D3, which are the
insurance policy documents, it is further submitted that, even otherwise, no condition has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
5 MA-279-2006
stipulated in the policy to the effect that travelling on the roof of the bus would amount to a
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy so as to exonerate the Insurance
Company from its liability. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company has not
adduced any evidence to establish that the bus was overcrowded or that more than 50
passengers were travelling therein so as to compel the deceased to travel on the roof of the
bus. Therefore, the direction of “pay and recover” issued by the Claims Tribunal cannot be
sustained.
14. It has been further argued on behalf of the claimants that even if it is assumed that
the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus, the principles of contributory negligence
would still not be attracted. Learned counsel for the claimants has also raised an objection
with regard to the maintainability of the cross-objections preferred by the Insurance
Company. It is submitted that once the Insurance Company has satisfied the award by
depositing the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, it is not open to it to
maintain the cross-objections. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon
the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.A.
No.4011/2023 (Smt. Sonam Devi and Others vs. Smt. Rinki and Others).
15. In the connected M.A. No.802/2006 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, it
has been argued that the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Claims Tribunal
is perverse. It has further been argued on behalf of the owner that even if it is accepted that
the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus, the same does not constitute a breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the direction of “pay and
recover” passed by the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. In support of the said contention,
reliance has been placed upon the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in M.A. No.926/2009 (Ramvaran and Another vs. Yadvendra Singh Tomar and
Others).
16. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the Insurance Company, by
placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 509, that once the Insurance Company has
been impleaded as a party in the claim proceedings, the scope of the defence available to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
6 MA-279-2006
Insurance Company is not restricted by Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Insofar as
the maintainability of the cross-objections is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Superintending Engineer and Others v. B. Subba Reddy,
(1999) 4 SCC 423, which has been followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.A.
No.1278/2010 vide judgment dated 07.01.2026 (Smt. Geeta Devi and Others vs. Ramjan
Khan and Others).
17. In order to buttress the submission that the deceased was travelling on the roof of
the bus, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company draws the attention of this
Court to the FIR recorded under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. at Police Station Joura vide Crime
No.0/04 dated 20.09.2004 (Ex.P3) and thereafter to the FIR recorded under Section 154 of the
Cr.P.C. at Police Station Baghchini vide Crime No.145/2004 (Ex.P2), to submit that the
deceased, Shanu Khan, had accompanied the informant, Bablu Sharma, for lodging the FIR
(Ex.P2). The FIR (Ex.P2) clearly shows that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the
bus at the time of the accident. He submits that both the FIRs (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3) in question
have been produced in evidence by the claimants themselves. The claimants have relied upon
the said FIRs in support of their claim petition. Reference to the FIRs has also been made in
the pleadings of the claim petition and, therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla and Others, 2007 (3)
TAC 11 (S.C.) , with special reference to paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14, it is not open to the
claimants to blow “hot and cold” and “pick and choose” the contents of the FIR according to
their convenience. Once the FIR has been exhibited and admitted in evidence at the instance
of the claimants, the same has to be read and relied upon for all purposes. He further submits
that the reliance placed by learned counsel for the owner on the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.A. No.926/2009 decided on 21.02.2019 (Ramvaran and
Another vs. Yadvendra Singh Tomar and Others) is of no assistance, as in the said case the
claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, by taking this Court through
the evidence of Shoru Khan (AW-2), father of the deceased, submits that he has admitted that
the family was being maintained from his own earnings and, therefore, the brothers and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
7 MA-279-2006
sisters of the deceased, who was admittedly unmarried, could not have been treated as
dependants. He further submits that even the income of the deceased assessed by the learned
Claims Tribunal at Rs.3,125/- per month is not in conformity with law. Though the deceased
was aged about 20 years and has been treated as a mason, no evidence was led by the
claimants to establish that he was working as a mason and, therefore, at the most, he would be
entitled to the wages payable to a skilled labourer prevailing on the date of the accident,
which was Rs.2,423/- per month. He further submits that the claim for consortium in favour
of the siblings of the deceased, as advanced by learned counsel for the claimants, is wholly
misconceived. It is submitted that only the parents of the deceased would be entitled to
consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He fairly submits that the claimants would be entitled to addition
towards future prospects at the rate of 40% and application of multiplier of 18.
19. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Award as well as
record of the Claims Tribunal.
20. So far the question regarding maintainability of cross-objection filed by the
Insurance Company is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.Subba
Reddy(supra) has held as under:-
“23. From the examination of these judgments and the provisions Of Section 41 of
the Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, in our view, following principles
emerge:
(1) Appeal is a substantive right. It is a creation of the statute. Right to appeal does
not exist unless it is specifically conferred,
(2) Cross objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed
in the form of memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code,
so far as these relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply
to cross-objection as well.
(3) Court fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the memorandum of appeal.
Provisions relating to appeals by indigent person also apply to cross-objection.
(4) Even where the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, cross-objection
may nevertheless be heard and determined.
(5) Respondent even though he has not appealed may support the decree on any
other ground but if wants to modify it, he has to file cross-objection to the decree
which objections he could have taken earlier by filing an appeal. Time for filing
objection which is in the nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of
notice on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This time could also be
extended by the Court like in appeal.
(6) Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that
the respondent wanted to give quietus to whole litigation by his accepting theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:190678 MA-279-2006
judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. When,
however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal statute gave the
respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he still
felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order.”
21. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.Subba Reddy (supra)
has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Geeta Devi
(supra). Accordingly, this Court sees no reason to take a view different from that adopted by
the Coordinate Bench.
22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Subba Reddy (supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the cross-objections preferred by the Insurance Company are
maintainable. Merely because the Insurance Company has satisfied the award or has not
independently preferred an appeal, it does not lose its statutory right to maintain cross-
objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure once the award has been
challenged by the claimants. A respondent who is aggrieved by any finding or part of the
award is entitled to assail the same by filing cross-objections. Since the Insurance Company
has questioned the findings relating to negligence as well as the quantum of compensation, the
cross-objections are legally maintainable.
23. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the claimants regarding the
maintainability of the cross-objections is rejected. The cross-objections preferred by the
Insurance Company are held to be maintainable and are taken on record.
24. The next issue which arises for consideration relates to the determination of the
income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased by treating
him as a mason and fixing his wages at the rate of Rs.125/- per day. However, no material
whatsoever has been brought on record to indicate the basis on which such income was
assessed. Once the Claims Tribunal accepted the evidence adduced by the claimants that the
deceased was working as a mason, who is admittedly a skilled labourer, there was no
justification for assessing his income on an arbitrary basis. In the absence of reliable evidence
regarding the actual income of the deceased, his income ought to have been assessed on the
basis of the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled labourer prevailing on the date of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
9 MA-279-2006
accident. Consequently, the finding of the Claims Tribunal assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.125/- per day cannot be sustained and deserves to be modified. Accordingly,
the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.2,423/-, being the minimum wages
payable to a skilled labourer on the date of the accident.
25. The next question which falls for consideration is whether the learned Claims
Tribunal committed any error in recording a finding that the deceased was travelling on the
roof of the offending bus.
26. Upon an independent appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this
Court finds no reason to take a view different from that recorded by the Claims Tribunal. The
FIR (Ex.P2), which has been produced and relied upon by the claimants themselves,
specifically records that the deceased, Shanu Khan, was travelling on the roof of the bus and,
when the bus reached near Baghchini Tiraha, he struck against a tree branch, fell from the
roof of the bus, and sustained fatal injuries. The Marg Intimation (Ex.P5), registered under
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior, as
Merg No.410 of 2004, prior to the registration of Crime No.04 of 2004 at Police Station
Joura, also records the same factual position.
27. The contention advanced on behalf of the claimants that the deceased was travelling
inside the bus and had merely climbed onto the roof to inspect his luggage while the bus was
stationary cannot be accepted. The deceased was accompanied by the informant, Bablu
Sharma, at the time of lodging the FIR. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the
incident as recorded in the FIR, which was lodged immediately after the accident. Although
Dilshad Mohammad (AW-1) has been examined as an eyewitness, his testimony does not
inspire confidence and deserves to be discarded, as it is not supported by any documentary
evidence. Thus, the earliest version of the incident contained in the FIR, lodged immediately
after the accident and relied upon by the claimants themselves, clearly establishes that the
deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus.
28. The Apex Court, in the case of Premlata Shukla (supra), has held as under:-
“Factum of accident could not be proved from F.I.R. – Once a part of the contents of a
document is admitted in evidence, a party cannot be permitted to turn around and
contend that the other contents had not been proved.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
10 MA-279-2006
29. However, the distinguishing feature in the present case is that the FIR in question
itself has been produced and relied upon by the claimants in support of their own case. Having
relied upon the same, the claimants cannot be permitted to accept only those portions which
support their case while rejecting the remaining recitals adverse to them. In this regard, the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Premlata Shukla (supra) is squarely
applicable.
30. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the evidence available on record, this
Court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was
travelling on the roof of the offending bus. Once such finding is affirmed, the next question
which arises is whether the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the learned Claims
Tribunal calls for interference.
31. Travelling on the roof of a passenger bus is inherently unsafe and exposes a
passenger to obvious and foreseeable risks. A reasonably prudent person is expected to refrain
from such hazardous conduct. The deceased, by voluntarily travelling on the roof of the bus,
materially contributed to the occurrence of the accident. At the same time, the driver cannot
be absolved of his statutory duty, as he was under an obligation not to permit any passenger to
travel on the roof of the bus and to operate the vehicle with due care and caution.
32. The Division Bench of this Court in Bhuribai and Others vs. Shyam Sunder and
Others, (2008) ACC 938 (MP), has held that where the driver and conductor permitted the
deceased to travel on the roof of the bus, they were equally responsible for the accident. The
Division Bench further held that, in view of the prohibition contained in Section 123(2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, a passenger travelling on the roof of a bus also contributes to the
occurrence of the accident. Consequently, such a case is one of contributory negligence, and
the liability has to be apportioned accordingly.
33. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the entire material available on
record, apportioned negligence equally between the deceased and the driver by holding the
deceased guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. This Court finds the said
apportionment to be just, fair, and reasonable and fully supported by the evidence available on
record. No ground warranting interference with the said finding has been made out.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
11 MA-279-2006
Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal holding the deceased guilty
of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% is hereby affirmed.
34. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, once the income of the
deceased is reassessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled labourer, the
compensation necessarily requires re-computation. The deceased was aged about 20 years at
the time of the accident and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18. The
claimants are also entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects in view of the law
laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Since the deceased
was unmarried, 50% of his income is liable to be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses in accordance with the settled principles of law.
35. The entitlement to compensation under the conventional head of consortium is now
well settled. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru
Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that consortium is a compendious
expression comprising spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. The
said principle has been reaffirmed in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 , wherein it has been held that consortium is
payable only to the category of claimants legally recognised under the respective heads.
Consequently, in the present case, only the parents of the deceased are entitled to filial
consortium. The brothers and sisters of the deceased, though they may be dependants for the
purpose of computation of loss of dependency, are not entitled to compensation under the
head of consortium.
36. The evidence on record, particularly the testimony of father of the deceased,
establishes that the deceased was contributing towards the maintenance of the family. Such
evidence is relevant only for determining the loss of dependency and has no bearing upon the
entitlement to consortium. Accordingly, filial consortium is awarded only to the father and
mother of the deceased.
37. The claimants are further entitled to compensation under the conventional heads of
loss of estate and funeral expenses in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. However, the total compensation so determined shall be reduced by 50% on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
12 MA-279-2006
account of the contributory negligence of the deceased, as affirmed hereinabove.
38. So far as M.A. No. 802/2006, preferred by the owner, is concerned, this Court
finds no merit in the appeal. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased
was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% and the driver of the offending bus
was equally negligent. This Court has affirmed the said findings and finds no ground
warranting interference therewith. The direction issued by the learned Claims Tribunal
requiring the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to
recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle is in accordance
with law and does not call for any interference. Consequently, M.A. No. 802/2006, preferred
by the owner, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. For the same reasons, cross-
objections filed by owner vide I.A. No.13811/2006 in M.A. No.279/2006 are also disposed
of.
39. As a consequence of foregoing discussion, M.A. No.279/2006, preferred by the
claimants, succeeds in part and is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be recomputed as
under:
Particulars Calculation Amount (Rs.)
Minimum Wages Act of skilled
Monthly income 2,423
labourer
Annual income 2,423 × 12 29,076
Addition towards future prospects (40%) 29,076 × 40% 11,630
Total annual income 40,706
Deduction towards personal expenses (50%) (-)20,353
Annual loss of dependency 20,353
Multiplier 20,353 × 18 3,66,354
Filial consortium Rs.40,000 × 2 (father and mother) 80,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Gross compensation 4,76,354
Less: 50% contributory negligence (-)2,38,177
Net compensation payable Rs.2,38,177/-
(Rs. 1,49,000/- awarded by the Claims
Additional enhanced amount Rs. 89,177/-
Tribunal)
40. The aforesaid additional enhanced amount shall carry interest at the same rate as
awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19067
13 MA-279-2006
41. Consequently, the impugned award dated 24.12.2005, passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No.97 of 2004, stands modified only to the extent of
enhancement and re-computation of compensation in the manner indicated hereinabove. In all
other respects, including the finding regarding the contributory negligence, the impugned
award is affirmed. The remaining directions contained in the impugned Award shall remain
unaltered, except to the extent of modification in the quantum of compensation. There shall be
no order as to costs.Consequently, the cross-objection preferred by the Insurance Company
also stand disposed of.
42. A copy of this order be placed in connected M.A. No. 802 of 2006.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 10-Jul-26
10:40:47 AM
