Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Munni Devi vs Krishnapal Singh on 23 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
1 MA-773-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 773 of 2016
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
SMT. MUNNI DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shrinivas Gajendragadkar - Advocate for appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondents no. 3 and 4.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 899 of 2016
SMT. MUNNI DEVI AND ANOTHER
Versus
KRISHNAPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for appellants- claimants.
None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served.
Shri Shrinivas Gajendragadkar-Advocate for respondent
No.3/Insurance Company.
JUDGMENT
Since both the appeals have been preferred under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and arise out of the common Award dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
2 MA-773-2016
22.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena
(hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.10/2015,
they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. Miscellaneous Appeal No.773/2016 has been preferred by the
Insurance Company challenging the Award mainly on the grounds that: (i)
the Claims Tribunal erred in imposing penal interest at the rate of 12% per
annum in the event of default in payment of the compensation within two
months; (ii) the offending truck has been falsely implicated; and (iii) the
Claims Tribunal failed to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased.
3. Miscellaneous Appeal No.899/2016 has been filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal,
whereby a sum of Rs.3,49,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization has been
awarded on account of the death of Ajay Pal Singh in the motor accident.
4. In brief, the facts giving rise to present appeals, are that the
claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
seeking compensation on account of the death of Ajay Pal Singh in a motor
accident that occurred on 04.09.2009. It was pleaded that the deceased, along
with his friend Arvind Singh, was proceeding on a motorcycle from Morena
to Village Khadoli. When they reached near Devari Village, between Fauji
Dhaba and the Narua Canal Bridge on A.B. Road, Truck No. MP-06- E-
5347, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the
road, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of such accident, Ajay Pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
3 MA-773-2016
Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained, while the pillion rider, Arvind
Singh, also sustained grievous injuries. An FIR was registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, Morena, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the driver of the offending truck for offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was pleaded that
the deceased was about 19 years of age, was pursuing his studies and had
bright future prospects. It was further pleaded that after completing his
education, the deceased would have secured gainful employment with an
estimated monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. On these averments,
compensation of Rs.32,10,000/- was claimed from the owner, driver and
insurer of offending vehicle.
5. The owner and driver denied the accident involving the truck and
pleaded that the vehicle had been falsely implicated. The Insurance
Company also denied the allegations and raised several objections, inter alia,
that the claim petition suffered from procedural defects; the claimants had
failed to produce relevant documents relating to the vehicle and the driver;
there was no proof regarding the age and income of the deceased; the
accident, according to the FIR, involved Tempo No.CG-04/M-6566 and not
Truck No.MP-06/E-5347; the truck had been subsequently implicated; and
necessary parties, namely the owner, driver and insurer of the tempo as well
as the motorcycle, had not been impleaded.
6. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the Claims
Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, by the impugned Award, granted
compensation in favour of claimants. Aggrieved thereby, both the Insurance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
4 MA-773-2016
Company and the claimants have preferred the present appeals.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that
the Claims Tribunal committed an error in directing payment of penal
interest at the rate of 12% per annum in the event of failure to deposit the
compensation amount within two months. It is contended that once interest at
the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition had already
been awarded, the Claims Tribunal could not have imposed an additional
penal rate of interest. This aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Keshav Bahadur and
Others, (2004) 2 SCC 370.
8. It is further argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that the
learned Claims Tribunal itself recorded a finding that the deceased was about
seventeen and a half years of age and was not legally entitled to hold a valid
driving licence. Despite such finding, no contributory negligence has been
attributed to the deceased. Appropriate contributory negligence ought to
have been fastened upon the deceased. In support of contention, a reliance
has been placed on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of
Ramzan Ansari and another vs. Kavita Singh and others, 2011 ACJ 1063.
9. It is next contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the
FIR (Exhibit D2), lodged by Arvind Singh, who was travelling as a pillion
rider on the motorcycle, specifically mentions that the accident was caused
by Tempo No.C.I.W-6566. As the said tempo was not insured, Truck
No.MP-06/E-5347 was subsequently and falsely implicated. The FIR, being
the earliest version of occurrence, carries considerable evidentiary value and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
5 MA-773-2016
ought not to have been ignored by the learned Claims Tribunal. In support of
this submission, reliance has been placed upon the decisions in the case of
Arun Kumar Patel and another vs. Smt. Terasi Saket and others, ILR (2008)
MP 282; National Insurance Company Limited vs. Rattani and Others,
(2009) 2 SCC 75; and Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata
Shukla and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 476.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that if,
during investigation, the involvement of Truck No. MP-06/E-5347 was
subsequently found, it was incumbent upon the claimants to examine the
Investigating Officer in order to explain the circumstances under which the
truck came to be implicated. In the absence of such evidence, the Insurance
Company was deprived of an opportunity to effectively cross-examine the
Investigating Officer. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Smt. Setubai and Others, ILR (2008) MP 2367.
11. Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of Insurance Company that the
Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas,
in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700, only
Rs.15,000/- is admissible under the said head.
12. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for Insurance Company
prays for setting aside the impugned Award and dismissal of appeal preferred
by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
6 MA-773-2016
supports the impugned Award insofar as the grant of penal interest is
concerned and submits that once two months’ time had been granted to the
Insurance Company for payment of the compensation amount, the Claims
Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to impose a higher rate of interest in
the event of default. It is further submitted that merely because the deceased
was below eighteen years of age and was driving the motorcycle, no finding
of contributory negligence can be recorded unless negligence on his part is
independently established. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh and
Others, (2008) 12 SCC 436.
14. With regard to the involvement of Truck No. MP-06/E-5347,
learned counsel for claimants submits that although the FIR initially referred
to the involvement of a tempo, the investigation subsequently revealed that
the offending vehicle was the truck in question, whereafter a charge-sheet
was filed against its driver. It is argued that the claimants have duly proved
the accident by leading cogent evidence, whereas the Insurance Company
failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the same. It was always open to the
Insurance Company to summon the Investigating Officer in support of its
defence, and it cannot now seek to derive advantage from the evidence
produced by the claimants. In support of submissions, reliance has been
placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sunita and
Others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2019
ACC 486 (SC), and National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Chamundeshwari and Others, (2021)8 SCR 611, to contend that once a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
7 MA-773-2016
charge-sheet has been filed against the offending vehicle, the claimants
discharge their burden on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
15. On the question of enhancement of compensation, learned counsel
for the Claimants submits that the notional income of the deceased assessed
by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is wholly inadequate. It is
contended that having regard to the prevailing wages of an unskilled labourer
at the relevant point of time, the income ought to have been assessed at
Rs.4,200/- per month. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the
case of Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmed Simon and another, SLP
(Civil) No.10996/2018 decided on 11.12.2024. It is further submitted that the
Claims Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future prospects and
conventional heads. It is argued that the deduction towards personal expenses
ought to have been one-third instead of one-half in view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is also contended that 40% addition
towards future prospects and compensation under the head of loss of
consortium and other conventional heads ought to have been awarded. On
these grounds, learned counsel prays that the compensation awarded by the
Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced and the appeal preferred by the
Insurance Company be dismissed.
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as
well as the impugned Award.
17. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company regarding contributory negligence is concerned, the same deserves
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
8 MA-773-2016
to be rejected. Merely because the deceased was about seventeen and a half
years of age and was driving the motorcycle without holding a valid driving
licence, it cannot, by itself, be inferred that he was guilty of contributory
negligence. The issue of contributory negligence has to be determined on the
basis of the manner in which the accident occurred and not merely on
account of absence of a valid driving licence. Unless there is cogent evidence
to establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence attributable to
the deceased, no deduction on account of contributory negligence can be
made. In the present case, except for raising the plea that the deceased was
not holding a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company has failed to
adduce any evidence to establish any negligent act on the part of the
deceased which contributed to the occurrence of the accident. On the
contrary, the material available on record reveals that, after due investigation,
the police filed the charge-sheet against the driver of Truck No. MP-06/E-
5347, and no material has been brought on record to dislodge the said
finding. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra)
has categorically held that mere absence of a valid driving licence cannot by
itself lead to a finding of contributory negligence unless negligence in
driving is independently proved. Consequently, the plea of contributory
negligence raised by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit and is hereby
rejected.
18. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company regarding the alleged false implication of Truck No.
MP-06/E-5347 also does not merit acceptance. Merely because the First
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
9 MA-773-2016
Information Report initially mentioned the involvement of Tempo
No.C.I.W.-6566, it cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that the offending
truck was subsequently and falsely implicated. It is well settled that an FIR is
not a substantive piece of evidence and its primary purpose is only to set the
criminal law into motion. The material available on record reveals that during
the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency found the involvement
of Truck No. MP-06/E-5347 in the accident and, accordingly, filed a charge-
sheet against its driver. The filing of the charge-sheet, coupled with the oral
and documentary evidence produced before the Claims Tribunal, constitutes
sufficient material to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle on
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are not required to prove their case
beyond reasonable doubt as is required in criminal proceedings; rather, the
claimants are required to establish their case on the basis of the standard of
preponderance of probabilities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sunita (supra) has held that the filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of
the offending vehicle is a relevant circumstance which cannot be brushed
aside, particularly when the opposite party fails to produce any cogent
evidence to disprove the involvement of such vehicle. Similarly, in the case
of Chamundeshwari (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that once the
claimants establish the involvement of the offending vehicle on the basis of
the material available on record and the police investigation culminates in
filing of a charge-sheet, the initial burden stands discharged and the burden
shifts upon the insurer to rebut such evidence by leading cogent and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
10 MA-773-2016
convincing material. In the present case, although the Insurance Company
disputed the involvement of Truck No.MP-06/E-5347, it neither examined
the Investigating Officer nor produced any independent evidence to establish
that the accident was caused by the tempo or that the truck was falsely
implicated. Therefore, the defence raised by the Insurance Company remains
a mere assertion without any supporting evidence. In such circumstances,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the
learned Claims Tribunal regarding the involvement of Truck No.MP-06/E-
5347, and accordingly, the plea of false implication raised by the Insurance
Company is hereby rejected.
19. The next contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company relates to the imposition of penal interest at the rate of 12% per
annum in the event of failure to deposit the awarded compensation within
two months. The said contention deserves acceptance. The learned Claims
Tribunal has already awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the
compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization. Once interest has been awarded under Section 171 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to impose an additional
penal rate of interest merely on account of default in payment within the
stipulated period. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Keshav Bahadur
(supra) has categorically held that the Motor Vehicles Act does not
contemplate the grant of penal interest and that the Claims Tribunal is
empowered only to award reasonable interest on the compensation
determined. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the direction of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
11 MA-773-2016
the learned Claims Tribunal imposing penal interest at the rate of 12% per
annum in case of default in depositing the compensation within two months
cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. However, the award
of interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the compensation amount from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization shall remain undisturbed.
20. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company
regarding the award of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses also deserves
consideration. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.25,000/- under the said conventional head; however, in view of the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount admissible towards funeral expenses is
restricted to Rs.15,000/-, subject to periodical enhancement as held therein.
Accordingly, the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal awarding
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses is hereby set aside to the extent of
excess amount and the same is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.
21. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants
is that the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the
deceased ought to have been one-third instead of one-half. It is undisputed
fact that the deceased was an unmarried bachelor at the time of the accident
and the claim petition was preferred by his parents. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121, has categorically held that where the deceased is a bachelor and the
claimants are his parents, ordinarily 50% of the income is liable to be
deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as it is presumed that a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
12 MA-773-2016
bachelor would spend a substantial portion of his income on himself and
only the remaining amount would be available for contribution to the family.
The said principle has consistently been followed and reaffirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) . In the present
case, since the deceased was admittedly unmarried, the learned Claims
Tribunal has rightly deducted one-half of the income towards personal and
living expenses. Therefore, the submission of the claimants that only one-
third deduction ought to have been made is contrary to the settled principles
of law and does not merit acceptance.
22. Now, the only question which survives for consideration is with
regard to the quantum of compensation.
23. It is not in dispute that the deceased was about seventeen and a half
years of age at the time of the accident and was pursuing his studies. He was
not earning any income at the time of the accident. However, while
determining the compensation in the case of a young non-earning victim, the
Court cannot adopt a mechanical approach by treating him merely as a non-
earning person, but has to consider his educational background, potential for
future employment, age, and the prevailing socio-economic conditions. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra ), has observed
that while assessing compensation in the case of a non-earning young victim,
the Court must take into consideration the future prospects and potential of
the deceased, while ensuring that the assessment remains reasonable and
based on relevant factors. In the present case, the deceased was a student of
the Board of Secondary Education and, therefore, his future earning capacity
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
13 MA-773-2016
cannot be completely ignored merely because he was not earning at the time
of the accident.
24. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the notional
income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.4,200/- per month
by treating him as an unskilled labourer, having regard to the prevailing
minimum wages applicable on the date of the accident. However, the said
contention cannot be accepted, as Rs.4,200/- per month was not the
minimum wages prevalant in the State of Madhya Pradesh at the relevant
time. The deceased was a student and had a reasonable prospect of pursuing
higher education and securing gainful employment in the future. Therefore,
assessing his notional income merely on the basis of the wages payable to an
unskilled labourer would not be an appropriate reflection of his earning
potential. At the same time, considering his educational status, young age,
future prospects, and the promising career that lay ahead of him, he cannot
be placed in the category of a person having no earning capacity. In such
circumstances, the Court is required to adopt a balanced and pragmatic
approach while determining the notional income. It is not in dispute that the
minimum monthly wages prescribed for a skilled worker in the State of MP
at the relevant time were Rs.3,800/-. In the considered opinion of this Court,
adopting the said amount as the notional monthly income of the deceased
would strike a fair balance between his future earning potential and the need
to avoid a speculative assessment. Accordingly, the notional income of the
deceased is assessed at Rs.3,800/- per month.
25.Since the deceased was unmarried, deduction of 50% towards
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
14 MA-773-2016
personal and living expenses, as made by the learned Claims Tribunal, is in
accordance with the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121. Further, as the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the
claimants are entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects in view
of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi(supra). The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, are
also entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each in terms of the law laid
down in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, as affirmed in
United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur and Others, (2020) 11 SCC 1 . They shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses in terms of
Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, the compensation is re-determined as
under:-
Monthly income : Rs.3,800/-
Annual income : Rs.45,600/-
Add: 40% towards future prospects : Rs.18,240/-
Total annual income : Rs.63,840/-
Less: 50% towards personal expenses : Rs.31,920/-
Annual dependency : Rs.31,920/-
Multiplier of 18 : Rs.5,74,560/-
Filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to both parents) : Rs.80,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
15 MA-773-2016
Total compensation : Rs.6,84,560/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand
Five Hundred Sixty only).
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the claimants are held entitled to
receive total compensation of Rs.6,84,560/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty-Four
Thousand Five Hundred Sixty only) as against the amount of Rs.3,49,000/-
awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, the enhanced amount of
compensation comes to Rs.3,35,560/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty-Five
Thousand Five Hundred Sixty only). The enhanced amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its realization, as already awarded by the learned Claims
Tribunal. The amount, if any, already received by the claimants shall be
adjusted from the enhanced compensation amount.
27. Consequently, Miscellaneous Appeal No.773/2016 preferred by the
Insurance Company succeeds in part and is partly allowed . The direction
issued by the learned Claims Tribunal imposing penal interest at the rate of
12% per annum in the event of failure to deposit the compensation amount
within the stipulated period is hereby set aside. The finding awarding
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses is also set aside and the said amount is
reduced to Rs.15,000/-. Except to the aforesaid extent, all other findings
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal regarding negligence, involvement
of the offending vehicle, liability of the Insurance Company and other
aspects of the Award are hereby affirmed.
28. Miscellaneous Appeal No.899/2016 preferred by the claimants also
succeeds in part and is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The
compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22202
16 MA-773-2016
Rs.3,49,000/- to Rs.6,84,560/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand
Five Hundred Sixty only), along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The enhanced
amount, after adjustment of the amount already awarded and paid by the
learned Claims Tribunal, shall be payable to the claimants in accordance
with the apportionment and other directions contained in the impugned
Award, which shall remain applicable to the enhanced amount also.
29. The impugned Award dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No.10 of 2015 stands modified to
the aforesaid extent. The parties shall bear their own costs.
30. A copy of this judgment be also placed in the connected appeal i.e.
M.A. No.899 of 2016.
31. A copy of this judgment along with the record be transmitted to the
Claims Tribunal for necessary compliance.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 27-07-2026
12:28:56
