Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Rukmani Bai Thakur vs Dinesh Kumar Mehra on 28 July, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
CIVIL REVISION No. 114 of 2024
M/S SAIRAM SHIKSHAN SAMITI AND OTHERS
Versus
NARESH KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 7617 of 2023
SMT PRABHA PANDRE AND OTHERS
Versus
DINESH KUMAR MEHRA AND OTHERS
MISC. APPEAL No. 7622 of 2023
SMT RUKMANI BAI THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
DINESH KUMAR MEHRA AND OTHERS
MISC. APPEAL No. 995 of 2024
M/S SAIRAM SHIKSHAN SAMITI AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. RUKMANI BAI THAKUR AND OTHERS
MISC. APPEAL No. 1000 of 2024
M/S SAIRAM SHIKSHAN SAMITI AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. PRABHA PANDRE AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Aakash Malpani - Advocate for the Petitioner in the respective
cases.
Shri Binod Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in the
respective cases.
Shri Bhanu Prakash - Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in the
respective cases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on :22/06/2026)
(Pronounced on : 28 /07/2026)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
2
This batch of appeals under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure have been filed
challenging the common award dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’ for short), Narsinghpur in claim case
Nos. MACC 112/2021, 113/2021 and 14/2022 which were filed in relation
to the same accident that resulted in injury to one person and death of two
other persons who were riding a motorcycle which is stated to have dashed
with the bus owned by the owner-Society. Since common issues are
involved in these matters and all these matters arise out of the same
accident, therefore these cases have been heard together and are being
decided by this common order.
2. CR 114 of 2024, MA 995 of 2024 and MA 1000 of 2024 have been
filed against that part of the award of the MACT whereby the insurance
company has been exonerated of its liability and the direction of pay and
recover has been made by the Tribunal.
3. MA 7617 of 2023 and MA 7622 of 2023 have been filed by the
claimants of two death cases who are seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellate-owner in the cases challenging
the exoneration of liability of insurance company and directing pay and
recover has vehemently argued that the MACT has held that the vehicle
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
3
was being driven without permit. The vehicle in question is an educational
institution vehicle and the owner is the society running the
educational institution. It is argued that the accident took place on
17.12.2021 and the temporary permit was issued on the same date. It is
argued that earlier the permit was effective up to 31.03.2020 but certain
general extensions of permits were granted by the State Government in
view of extraordinary situation created by COVID-19 pandemic. He admits
that no such extension was applicable as on the date when the accident took
place, but permit had duly been granted on the same date when the accident
took place and therefore the grant of permit would relate back to the
midnight of that date and the Claims Tribunal has adopted a very hyper-
technical view in holding that the permit was issued on 17.12.2021 but it
would not be applicable and enforceable from midnight of 17.12.2021 but
would be applicable from 12:48 pm on the said date. The accident took
place around 8:00 am on the said date and hence, the vehicle has been held
to be plying without a permit. It is argued that the Tribunal has adopted a
very hyper technical view in holding that the permit was issued about four
and half hours later to the accident and therefore on the time of accident the
bus was not having permit, though on the date of accident the bus was
having permit. This is too hyper technical view to be sustained by this
Court and this Court therefore should set aside the said view taken by the
Tribunal. It is argued that though the temporary permit issued in Form
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
4
No.51 attached to M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 mentions the time of
12:48:26 pm on the top left corner on this document Exhibit D-1, but the
time so mentioned is the time of printing of permit and it does not indicate
that the permit was issued on that time, or was finally approved on that date
and time. It only indicates that it was printed from the system at 12:48 pm
but it cannot be inferred that it was prepared at 12:48 pm. It is argued that
the Tribunal has therefore adopted a very hyper technical and impracticable
view in holding that on the date of accident the vehicle was having permit
but on the time of accident the vehicle was not having permit.
5. It is argued that the witness of RTO witness namely Shri Bradh Lal
Mehra, DW-2 appeared in the witness box and stated that the fees of permit
was deposited at 11:43 am and permit was issued on 12:48 pm, but no
receipt of fees was exhibited in evidence. One photocopy of receipt is
available in record which has not been exhibited in evidence and even if
that receipt is seen, it would be evident that even this receipt has been
printed from the system at 11:43 am on 17.12.2021 and it does not infer
that the amount was deposited at 11.43 am. It is online deposit and only
mentions the time of printing of receipt. However, no record was called
from Treasury Department to indicate that at what time the transaction took
place in the Treasury. It is argued that even no record was called from RTO
to indicate that when the application was received by the RTO, when it was
permitted by the RTO and when the permit was issued. It is argued that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
5
grant of permit may relate back to the date and time when the permit was
approved by the RTO and once no date of application is on record, no
application is on record, even no file of the RTO is on record, it cannot be
inferred as to the date and time when the application was moved, when the
permit was approved by the RTO and when it was issued and when the
printout was taken. It is further argued that once a grant of permit was
made by the RTO, then the grant would relate back to midnight of the
date and would not relate to the date of printing of the document, which
may be 12.48 pm.
6. Therefore, it is argued that the direction of “pay and recover” be set
aside. Learned counsel relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of New India Assurance Vs. Ramdayal and Others, 1990 (2) SCC
680, to argue that the issuance of permit shall relate back to the first
moment of the day when it is issued. By placing reliance on judgement of
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ruhail Manzoor Gunna, 2023 SCC
Online J&K 542, to submit that absence of permit is not a fundamental
breach and the insurer cannot be exonerated.
7. Per contra, counsel for the insurance company has vehemently
argued that permit was applied for and issued after accident took place at
about 8.00 am in the morning. The permit which is Exhibit D-1 clearly
mentions the date and time of preparation of permit which is 12:48 pm on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
6
17.12.2021 and the accident having already taken place in the morning of
17.12.2021 at around 8 am, therefore at the time of accident, the vehicle
was not having any permit and hence it was a breach of policy conditions.
The permit was applied after the accident had already taken place, and the
insurance company has rightly been exonerated of its liability.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length
and perused the record.
9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that permit had been issued in
favour of the owner on 17.12.2021 and the dispute being raised is that
whether at the time of accident which is around 8.00 am the vehicle had a
valid permit or not or whether the permit was issued later in the day which
is at 12:48 pm.
10. Firstly, the question of necessity of permit is to be dealt with.
Undisputedly, the vehicle was a School Bus and it was required to have a
permit in view of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that prohibits use
of Transport motor vehicle in public place without permit. The insurance
policy, Ex. D-4 has an exclusion clause in case the vehicle is used without
permit. The following is the relevant clause in the policy :-
“The policy covers the use only under a permit within the
meaning of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or such a carriage
falling under sub-section (3) of Sec 66 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988.The Policy covers use for any purpose other
than: (a) Organized racing (b) Pace making (c) Speed
testing (d) Reliability trials (e) Use whilst drawing aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
7trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one
disabled mechanically propelled vehicle.”
11. So far reliance on the case of Ruhail Manzoor Gunna (supra) of the
High Court of J&K and Ladakh is concerned, in the said case, permit
application had been pending for six months prior to date of accident. The
said judgement is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Upendra Rao
(name corrected from Challa Bharathamma) reported in (2004) 8 SCC
517. In that case itself, the insurer’s liability has been repudiated in the
following terms :
“12. The High Court was of the view that since there was
no permit, the question of violation of any condition
thereof does not arise. The view is clearly fallacious. A
person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed
on a better pedestal vis-Ã -vis one who has a permit, but
has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle
without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of
Section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that
aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of
adjudication. The question of policy being operative had
no relevance for the issue regarding liability of the
insurer. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in
holding the insurer liable.”
12. Later, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh
Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018)7 SCC 558 has held that
in case, if the transport vehicle was being plied without permit, then the
Insurance Company would not be liable. It also considered the case of
Challa Upendra Rao (supra). It was held as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
8
24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from
the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the
time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants
had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in
the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the
vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit.
The exceptions that have been carved out under Section
66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded
and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the
course of an argument to seek absolution from liability.
Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a
fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to
think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in
Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with
absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for
different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a
condition of carrying more number of passengers.
Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran
Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh,
(2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi
Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance,
(2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that
regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That
apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in
question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of
the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any
nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has
been brought on record by the insured to prove that he
had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus
cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as
well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was
required to pay the compensation amount to the
claimants with interest with the stipulation that the
insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the
owner and the driver. The said directions are in
consonance with the principles stated in Swaran
Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
9
(2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases
pertaining to pay and recover principle.
13. Therefore, the insistence of the Tribunal on the permit and applying
the principle of “Pay and Recover” cannot be faulted with, if the vehicle
had no permit. Now it is to be seen that whether the vehicle indeed had the
permit or not.
14. It is settled in law that if some grant is made on a particular date then
usually it would apply from the starting point of the day which would be
the midnight i.e. 00:00 hours in the midnight of that date. The permit
mentions it to be effective from 17.12.2021 and, therefore, the natural
import and meaning of the date being mentioned in the permit as
17.12.2021 as the starting date would mean that it would be effective from
00.00 hours in the midnight when the date 17.12.2021 started. If the
intention of the RTO was otherwise then it would have mentioned the time
of starting point of permit but it did not mention the time of starting point
of permit and in the column of applicability of permit simply mentioned it
to be applicable and valid from 17.12.2021 till 31.3.2022.
15. Attempt was made to equate the grant of permits with insurance
policies. Insurance is a contract between two parties, i.e. the insured and
the insurer. Once there is a proposal of insurance and the insured pays the
premium and the premium is accepted by the insurance company, then the
contract is concluded and the insurance company cannot wriggle out of its
own laches in not issuing the policy within time to say that the owner or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
10
insured would not be entitled to get benefit of insurance for the own default
of insurance company.
16. In the present case, equation with insurance policy cannot be made
for two reasons. Firstly, that here it is not the case that attempt is being
made by the Transport Department to take benefit of its own lethargy in not
issuing the permit on 29.10.2011, but it is the case of the permit being
issued on 03.11.2011 and the petitioner seeking benefit of insurance against
the Insurance company. Insurance company is not privy to something
which happened between the petitioner-appellant and the transport
department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In insurance contracts the
insurance company is privy to the contract and it seeks to wriggle out of its
obligations by sheltering under its own lethargy and inaction in not issuing
the policy timely despite getting the premium paid to it, and in those cases
the contract gets concluded between the insured and the insurer. Insurance
is a contract that gets concluded upon payment of money/premium, but
grant of permit is a statutory function of the State, that cannot be related
back in time. There is no automatic grant of permit upon deposit of fees.
17. Here there is another difference. It is not the case of contractual
relationship between Transport Department and the vehicle owner. The
vehicle owner intending to run a School Bus, which is a Transport Vehicle,
cannot do so unless he gets a permit by the Transport Department of the
State Government. It is something which is otherwise unlawful to be done
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
11
unless he gets a permit for the said purpose. The purpose of permits is to
regulate the buses on the routes so as to ensure public interest, and also to
generate revenue for the State. The insurance policy has the exclusion
clause if vehicle is run without permit.
18. The procedure for grant of permit is laid down as per Section 80 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is as under:-
“80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.–(1) An
application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time.
(2) A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport
Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1)
of section 66] shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for
permit of any kind made at any time under this Act:
Provided that the [Regional Transport Authority, State
Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 66] may summarily refuse the application if
the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would
have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed
and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed
and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of section 74:
Provided further that where a [Regional Transport
Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority
referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66] refuses an application
for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to
the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and
an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other
than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes
or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by
it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the
number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation,
extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified
in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a
new permit:
Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an
application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who
provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
12the service so provided without any increase in the number of
vehicles:
Provided further that,–
(i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered
and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-
four kilometres;
(ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by
extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini,
and any such variation or extension within such limits shall
be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such
variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not
expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route
as so varied or extended or any part thereof.
(4) A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport
Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1)
of section 66] may, before such date as may be specified by it in this
behalf, replace any permit granted by it before the said date by a
fresh permit conforming to the provisions of section 72 or section
74 or section 76 or section 79, as the case may be, and the fresh
permit shall be valid for the same route or routes or the same area
for which the replaced permit was valid:
Provided that no condition other than a condition which was
already attached to the replaced permit or which could have been
attached thereto under the law in force when that permit was
granted shall be attached to the fresh permit except with the
consent in writing of the holder of the permit.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 81, a
permit issued under the provisions of sub-section (4) shall be
effective without renewal for the remainder of the period during
which the replaced permit would have been so effective.”
19. Grant of temporary permits is governed by Section 87 of the Act of
1988 which is as under :-
“87. Temporary permits.–(1) A Regional Transport Authority and
the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure
laid down in section 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited
period which shall, not in any case exceed four months, to
authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily–
(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions
such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or
(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or
(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
13
(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a
permit, and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may
think fit:
Provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the case
may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case of goods
carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and
for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period
exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a
temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any
route or area where–
(i) no permit could be issued under section 72 or section 74
or section 76 or section 79 in respect of that route or area by
reason of an order of a court or other competent authority
restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the
period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or
(ii) as a result of the suspension by a court or other competent
authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or
area, there is no transport vehicle of the same class with a valid
permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate
number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a
period not exceeding the period of such suspension.
Provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of
which temporary permits are so granted shall not exceed the
number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of the permits have
been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been
suspended.
20. The permit in question is a Temporary permit. As per section 87
aforesaid, the permit issuing authority has to grant permits along with
conditions that will be attached to permit. The State of M.P. has framed
rules known as M. P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 and as per Rule 74, the
procedure on receipt of permit application and manner of disposal
thereof has been laid down which is as under :-
“74. Procedure on receipt of permit application and manner of
disposal thereof.
(1)Where an application for the grant, renewal, countersignature or
transfer of permit or for variation of any condition of permit or forSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
14replacement of vehicle is presented, it shall be marked with dated
initial by an officer of the Transport Department.
(2)Every application presented and duly marked under sub-rule (1)
shall be acknowledged in Form M.P.M.VR.-56 (APA). Such
application shall be entered serially in a register in Form
M.P.M.V.R.-57 (Form RPA) and shall be presented before the
Transport Authority for consideration.
(3)Transport Authority shall after considering the application, as
per provisions of law, pass an appropriate order thereon and
communicate.”
21. As per the aforesaid Rule 74, an application of permit has to be
received with dated initial by an officer of the Transport Department and it
shall be presented before the Transport Authority for consideration. As per
Rule 74(3), the Transport Authority after considering the application shall
pass an appropriate order thereon and communicate.
22. Therefore, it is clear that for grant of permit there has to be a formal
application and then a formal order of the transport authority. In the present
case, the receipt of fees as available in record indicates that the application
fees was also deposited on 17.12.2021 itself at 11:43 AM. Though the
application form is not on record, but the deposit of application fees on
17.12.2021 itself duly establishes that the application was moved on that
date itself, and must have been moved after opening of office hours, i.e.
after about 10:30 AM. The accident already took place at 8:00 AM.
Therefore, it is a clear case where after the accident had already occurred,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
15
the owner applied for a temporary permit and got it granted on the same
date.
23. Though it cannot be inferred that the date of formal approval or order
by the Transport Authority on the file would be the date of grant of permit,
but it is evident that there has to be an application and there has to be an
order on the application by the Transport Authority and only then the
permit would be issued which would be a ministerial act and that permit
may be valid from the date which would be marked so on the permit
so issued.
24. In the present case, the permit has been exhibited in evidence by the
insurance company as Exhibit D-1 which has been proved by DW- 2 who is
a Clerk in the Transport Department. By perusal of the time mentioned in
the top left corner of the permit application the said witness has stated that
the permit has been issued on 17.12.2021 at 12:48 pm.
25. The permit has been issued on 17.12.2021 and the time mentioned on
the permit seems to be the time of print of the permit document, but the
application was also submitted on same date, and could not have been
submitted prior to opening of office at 10.30 AM, and therefore, it is a clear
case of submission of permit application after the accident had taken place.
26. In such situation, the owner cannot take benefit of judgment in the
case of Ramdayal (supra). In the case of New India Assurance Co. v.
Bhagwati Devi, (1998) 6 SCC 534, a larger Bench of three Judges had the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
16
occasion to test the correctness of the decision in case of Ramdayal
(supra). It was a case where premium had been paid after the accident had
already taken place. It was held as under :-
“1. In this appeal, the correctness of the decision of a
two-member Bench of this Court reported in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal [(1990) 2 SCC 680 :
1990 SCC (Cri) 432] requires to be tested.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are minimal. The
appellant-insurance company sold a policy at about 4
p.m. on 17-2-1989. Undeniably, it had been bought at a
time when an accident pertaining to the vehicle insured
had already taken place at about 9 a.m. the same day.
The fatal accident occurring thereby gave rise to a claim
for damages before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The same was allowed on the strength of the decision of
this Court aforementioned, correctness of which has been
challenged. The said decision proceeded on the legal
fiction that when a policy is taken on a particular date,
its effectiveness would start from the commencement of
that date which is from the previous midnight. The
accident taking place at any time during the day would
be covered by the policy. Later a three-member Bench of
this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai
Nathuji Dabhi [(1997) 1 SCC 66] has taken the view that
when there is a special contract mentioning in the policy
the time when it was bought, it would be operative from
that time and not fictionally from the previous midnight.
In the said case, the policy had been bought at about 4
p.m. on the day of the accident and, thus, was not allowed
to be operative from midnight; the accident having
occurred around 11 a.m. on that date. The principle
deduced is thus clear that should there be no contract to
the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from
the previous midnight, when bought during the day
following. However, in case there is mention of a specific
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
17
time for its purchase then a special contract to the
contrary comes into being and the policy would be
effective from the mentioned time. The law on this aspect
has been put to rest by this Court. There is, thus, nothing
further for us to deliberate upon.
3. As a result, this appeal is allowed on the basis of the
decision of this Court in the Jikubhai case [(1997) 1 SCC
66] in such manner that the claim of the complainant for
compensation would stand rejected against the appellant-
insurance company but would otherwise remain allowed
against the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.
No costs.”
27. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to hold that the permit
as available on record as Exhibit D-1 was effective at the time of accident,
which was between 8.00 AM to 8.30 AM on the date of issuance of permit.
The accident taking place at 8.00 am would be deemed to be an accident
with a vehicle not having permit and in breach of policy conditions.
28. Therefore the finding of the MACT in holding that there is a breach
of policy conditions deserves to be and is hereby confirmed. The direction
of pay and recover deserves to be and is hereby confirmed.
29. Civil Revision No. 114 of 2024, MA No. 995 of 2024 and MA No.
1000 of 2024 stand dismissed in view of the aforesaid.
30. So far as MA 7617 of 2023 and 7622 of 2023 are concerned, these
are for enhancement.
31. In MA 7617 of 2023, the deceased was Ajju Pandre whose age has
been found to be 25 years and his occupation has been found to be
agricultural labourer.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
18
32. The MACT has found his income to be Rs.6,000/- per month as he
is shown to be daily wage earner. However, as the accident took place in
December 2021, even the income of agricultural labourer being reckoned at
Rs.6,000/- per month seems to be at grossly inadequate side. As per the
guidelines of M.P. State legal Services Authority, looking to the earnings of
Daily wage employees in the year 2021-22, the monthly income of an
unskilled daily rated workman has been reckoned to be Rs.8800/- per
month. This income can be deviated if some specific lower or higher
income had been proved, which could not be done. Therefore, this Court is
of the opinion that the income of the deceased Ajju Pandre should be
treated to be Rs.8,800/- per month. Other parameters of calculation are kept
intact.
33. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid income, the compensation is
arrived at as under:-
Annual income – 8800 + 3520(40% as per Pranay Sethi) = 12320 x 12 = 1,47,840/-
Annual dependency- 147840 – 36960 (personal exp. @ 25%) = 1,10,880/-
Total compensation – 110880 x 18 (multiplier) = 19,95,840/-
Conventional heads & loss of consortium as per Tribunal – 2,53,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 1995840+253000 = 22,48,840/-
Enhancement – Rs. 22,48,840-16,13,800 = 6,35,040/-
However, as the appeal is valued at Rs. 5,50,000/- only, the enhancement
would be Rs. 5,50,000/- only.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
19
34. So far as MA No. 7622 of 2023 is concerned, the deceased of this
case has been found to be 35 years of age and he was stated to be a labourer
and income of Rs.14,000/- per month was claimed. However, as the
accident took place in December 2021, even the income of agricultural
labourer being reckoned at Rs.6,000/- per month seems to be at grossly
inadequate side. As per the guidelines of M.P. State legal Services
Authority, looking to the earnings of Daily wage employees in the year
2021-22, the monthly income of an unskilled daily rated workman has been
reckoned to be Rs.8800/- per month. This income can be deviated if some
specific lower or higher income had been proved, which could not be done.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income assessed by
the Tribunal seems to be grossly inadequate side and it deserves to be
enhanced to Rs.8,800/- per month. Other parameters of calculation are kept
intact.
35. In view of the aforesaid, the claim awarded to claimants of MA 7622
of 2023 deserves to be enhanced in the following manner:-
Annual income – 8800 + 3520(40% as per Pranay Sethi) = 12320 x 12 = 1,47,840/-
Annual dependency- 1,47,840-36,960(personal exp. @ 25%) = 1,10,880/-
1,10,880 x 16 (multiplier) = 17,74,080/-
Conventional heads & loss of consortium as per Tribunal - 2,09,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 17,74,080 + 2,09,000 = 19,83,080/-
Enhancement - Rs. 19,83,080 - 14,18,600 5,64,480/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
20
However, as the appeal is valued at Rs.4,00,000/- only, the enhancement
would be Rs. 4,00,000/- only.
36. The liability of enhanced amounts shall be in similar terms as
awarded by the Tribunal, as the owner’s appeals have already been
dismissed by this common judgment. Interest shall be as awarded by the
Tribunal.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, appeals/revisions filed by the
owner i.e. CR No. 114 of 2024, MA No. 995 of 2024 and MA No. 1000 of
2024 are dismissed. Appeals for enhancement by the claimants, MA 7617
of 2023 and 7622 of 2023 are allowed and the compensation is enhanced
in the aforesaid terms.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 28-07-2026
18:53:42
