Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Krishnakanti

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89922
1 MA-2219-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
th
ON THE 5 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 2219 of 2011
CNR No.: MPHC010571752011
KRISHNAKANTI AND ANR
Versus
RAVINDRA @ RAVI AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Dharpure, counsel for appellants.
Shri T.S.Lamba, counsel for respondent/Insurance Company.
Shivam Kachhwaha, counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 4000 of 2011
CNR No.: MPHC010438652011
RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
Versus
KRISHNAKANTI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri T.S. Lamba, counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Shri Vaibhav Dharpure, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.
ORDER
These miscellaneous appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred by the claimants as well as the
Insurance Company against the common award dated 14.02.2011 passed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89922
2 MA-2219-2011
the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amarwara, District

Chhindwara, in Claim Case Nos.60/2009 and 142/2008, whereby the learned
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,29,512/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum from 01.12.2008 in respect of the death of Vipin Kumar.
The claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation,
whereas the Insurance Company has challenged the award, seeking
exoneration from its liability.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.08.2008, deceased Vipin
Kumar, aged about 45 years, was riding his motorcycle when another
motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-28-MB-0682, driven rashly and
negligently by respondent No.1, dashed against him, resulting in fatal
injuries. The deceased was working as a teacher and was also engaged in
agricultural activities. His two wives and their children filed separate claim
petitions, which were consolidated and decided by the Tribunal by a
common award. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence available on
record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the offending motorcycle and awarded compensation of Rs.11,29,512/- to the
claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
deceased was a Government teacher and his salary slip for the month of
May, 2008, i.e., prior to the date of the accident, was produced before the
Tribunal. However, due to an inadvertent mistake, no witness was examined
to prove the said document. It is contended that one opportunity be granted to
the claimants to prove the actual income of the deceased by adducing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89922
3 MA-2219-2011
appropriate evidence before the Tribunal so that just and proper

compensation may be determined. Accordingly, a prayer is made for
remanding the matter to the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposes the
prayer and submits that at this stage, the claimants cannot be permitted to
adduce additional evidence. However, in the event of remand, the Insurance
Company may also be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in support
of its defence and raise all available grounds. It is further submitted that the
failure to prove the salary slip is attributable to the claimants; therefore, they
should not be entitled to interest on the compensation amount for the period
from the date of filing of these appeals, i.e., 16.05.2011, till the date of this
order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased was a
Government servant and, in support of his income, the claimants had
produced his salary slip for the month of May, 2008, before the Tribunal.
However, no witness was examined to prove the said document. In the
considered opinion of this Court, since the income of the deceased is an
important factor for determining just and proper compensation, the claimants
deserve one opportunity to establish the actual income of the deceased by
adducing appropriate evidence. At the same time, the Insurance Company is
also entitled to an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its defence.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court finds it appropriate to remand
the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after granting an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
5:29:08 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89922
4 MA-2219-2011
opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence.

7. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed in part. The impugned
common award is set aside and the matters are remanded to the Tribunal for
fresh adjudication. The Tribunal shall grant an opportunity to the claimants
to adduce evidence to prove the salary slip and actual income of the
deceased. The Insurance Company shall also be at liberty to adduce evidence
in support of its defence. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall decide the claim
cases afresh in accordance with law.
8. However, it is made clear that the failure to prove the salary slip
before the Tribunal was attributable to the claimants. Therefore, the
claimants shall not be entitled to interest on the compensation amount for the
period commencing from 16.05.2011, i.e., the date of filing of these appeals,
till the date of this order.
9. Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned
Tribunal on 19.11.2026. The Tribunal shall proceed with the matter in
accordance with law.
10. Let the record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
11. No order as to costs.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
5:29:08 PM