Kusum Solanki vs Upendra Singh Sikarwar
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
1 MA-8030-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
MISC. APPEAL No. 8030 of 2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
KUSUM SOLANKI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal and Shri Dhuv Agrawal - learned counsel for
appellant.
Shri Harshit Kulshrestha - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/claimants.
None for respondents No.3 and 4 (driver and owner of the vehicle) though
served.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 329 of 2025
KUSUM SOLANKI AND ANOTHER
Versus
UPENDRA SINGH SIKARWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshit Kulshreshta- learned counsel for the appellants/claimants.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal and Shri Dhuv Agrawal - learned counsel for respondent
No.3/Insurance. Company.
None for respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the vehicle) though served.
Reserved on 18.08.2026
Passed on 03.09.2026
ORDER
Both present miscellaneous appeals, filed under Section 173 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
2 MA-8030-2024
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arise out of the award dated 20.07.2024 passed by
the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehgaon, District Bhind
(M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in MACC
No.07/2022, whereby the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 and
2/claimants seeking compensation on account of the death of Narendra Singh
Solanki in a motor accident has been allowed and a sum of Rs.16,09,500/-
has been awarded in their favour along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
2. M.A. No.8030/2024 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance
Company challenging the impugned award primarily on the grounds of false
implication of the offending vehicle and quantum of compensation, whereas
M.A. No.329/2025 has been preferred by respondents No.1 and 2/claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, they are being
heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
4. In brief, the facts of the case, as narrated by the claimants before the
Claims Tribunal, are that on 10.08.2019 at about 06:00 p.m., the deceased,
Narendra Singh Solanki, was travelling on his motorcycle from his village
towards Lahar. At that time, the driver of Tractor No. MP-30/AB-2144,
driving the tractor rashly and negligently, dashed against the motorcycle of
the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. He was initially taken to District Hospital, Bhind, for treatment and
was thereafter referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
3 MA-8030-2024
Subsequently, on 12.08.2019, he was brought to the Trauma Centre, J.A.
Hospital, Gwalior, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment.
5. The incident was reported to Police Station Lahar, on the basis of
which Crime No.332/2019 was registered against the driver of the offending
tractor, namely Upendra Singh Sikarwar, for an offence under Section 304-A
of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, which was registered as Criminal Case No. RCT 880/2019.
6. It was pleaded by the claimants that, at the time of the accident, the
deceased was about 53 years of age, was healthy and was working as a
senior advocate, earning approximately Rs.40,000/- per month. The deceased
was the sole breadwinner of the family and the claimants were dependent
upon his income. Due to his untimely death, his wife, Kusum Solanki, lost
the company, care and support of her husband, while his son, Pawan Pratap
Solanki, was deprived of the care, affection and support of his father. It was
further pleaded that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- had been incurred towards
the treatment of the deceased. On these grounds, the claimants claimed
compensation of Rs.1,70,10,000/- jointly and severally from the respondents.
7. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in their reply,
admitted the involvement of the tractor and the death of the deceased during
treatment, as well as the ownership of the tractor by Ashok Singh. However,
they denied any negligence on the part of the tractor driver and pleaded that
the accident had occurred due to potholes and slippery mud on the road. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
4 MA-8030-2024
was further pleaded that the driver of the tractor, Upendra Singh Sikarwar,
was holding a valid driving licence and the tractor was insured with the
Insurance Company. Therefore, the liability, if any, was that of the Insurance
Company.
8. The Insurance Company, in its reply, denied the claim and disputed
the manner as well as the date of the accident. It was pleaded that there was a
discrepancy regarding the date of the accident and that information regarding
the accident had allegedly been given to the police after considerable delay.
The alleged accident was suspicious and the claim petition was filed on the
basis of a fabricated case for the purpose of obtaining compensation. The
accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and, in
the alternative, that there was contributory negligence on his part. The
Insurance Company also raised an objection regarding the non-joinder of the
owner and insurer of the motorcycle as necessary parties. It was further
pleaded that, at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle,
Tractor No. MP-30-AB-2144, was not possessing a valid and effective
driving licence and the tractor was being operated in violation of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy. On these grounds, the Insurance
Company denied its liability to pay compensation.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal
framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating the evidence led by the
parties, passed the impugned award and awarded a sum of Rs.16,09,500/- as
compensation in favour of the claimants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
5 MA-8030-2024
10. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has
preferred M.A. No.8030/2024, questioning its liability and alleging false
implication of the offending vehicle, whereas the claimants have preferred
M.A. No.329/2025 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by
the Claims Tribunal.
11. Shri B.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company, challenges the impugned award on the ground of false implication
of the offending vehicle. It is his case that the accident had not occurred with
Tractor No. MP-30-AB-2144 and that the said vehicle has been falsely
implicated by the claimants, in connivance with its driver and owner, with an
intention to illegally obtain compensation. He also challenges the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is argued by Shri B.K.
Agrawal that the date of the accident was 10.08.2019 and the deceased died
on 12.08.2019, whereas the FIR (Exhibit P18) was registered on 08.10.2019,
i.e., after a delay of approximately one month and 28 days. No plausible
explanation for such delay in lodging the FIR has been brought on record.
By taking this Court through the Merg Intimation recorded on 12.08.2019 at
Police Station Kampoo (Exhibit P21), the Rojnamcha Sanha entry (Exhibit
P20) recorded at Police Station Lahar on 30.09.2019 and FIR dated
08.10.2019 (Exhibit P18), it is submitted that Merg Intimation was given to
Police Station Kampoo by J.A. Hospital, Trauma Centre, Gwalior, on the
date of the death of the deceased, Narendra Singh Solanki. The Rojnamcha
Sanha entry (Exhibit P20) indicates that the matter was referred to Police
Station Lahar on the basis of a letter received from the office of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
6 MA-8030-2024
Superintendent of Police informing about the death of Narendra Singh
Solanki in a road accident. Thereafter, the FIR dated 08.10.2019 was
registered by Head Constable Suresh Chand Jha, wherein the registration
number of the offending vehicle appears for the first time. The FIR records
that during the course of investigation, statements of Kunjesh Pratap Singh
Solanki, Rajesh Pal Singh Rajpoot, Narendra Singh Chauhan and Lavkush
Singh Gurjar were recorded, who stated that the deceased had died in a road
accident caused by Tractor bearing Registration No.MP-30AB-2144, being
driven by Upendra Singh Sikarwar. By placing reliance on the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Vanita and Others vs. Shriram Insurance
Company Limited and Another, 2025 (4) TAC 397 (SC), it is contended on
behalf of the Insurance Company that the initial burden of proving the
factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle lies upon the
claimants, which has not been discharged.
12. It is further argued by learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company that the Investigating Officer, Shri Suresh Chand Jha, who had
conducted the investigation, was not produced as a witness by the claimants.
By taking this Court through the evidence of Pawan Pratap Solanki (AW-1),
son of the deceased, it is argued by Shri Agrawal that, in his examination-in-
chief, the witness stated that he was not present at the spot of the accident
and had been informed about the accident by his family members. Referring
to his cross-examination, it is submitted that Pawan Pratap Solanki stated that
the registration number of the offending vehicle had been disclosed to him
by his brother, Kunjesh. However, Kunjesh was not produced as a witness by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
7 MA-8030-2024
the claimants before the Claims Tribunal. It is also argued that Pawan Pratap
Solanki, son of the deceased, claimed himself to be an advocate by
profession and, therefore, his failure to lodge the FIR for a period of one
month and 28 days is wholly unexplained and creates serious doubt
regarding the prosecution story. By further taking this Court through the
evidence of Rajpal Singh Tomar (AW-2), learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company submits that, in his examination-in-chief, Rajpal Singh
Tomar stated that the complaint regarding the accident at the Police Station
had been lodged immediately by the son-in-law of the deceased, Upendra
Singh. However, neither the said Upendra Singh was produced as a witness
by the claimants nor was he the complainant named in the FIR. Therefore, it
is submitted that a false claim has been set up by the claimants by
subsequently implicating the offending vehicle in question.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company further
draws the attention of this Court to the written statements filed by the driver
and owner of the offending vehicle, wherein they have categorically admitted
the occurrence of the accident. According to the learned counsel, such
admission clearly establishes the possibility of collusion and false
implication. By referring to Exhibit P30, i.e., the seizure memo of the tractor,
he submits that the tractor was seized at the Police Station. It is further
submitted that no notice calling upon the driver to produce the tractor for
seizure has been placed on record and the driver, on his own, went to the
Police Station for seizure of the tractor. It is also submitted that the seizure
memo Ex.P30 was prepared on 29.11.2019, whereas the charge-sheet was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
8 MA-8030-2024
filed on the very next day, i.e., 30.11.2019, which also creates serious doubt
regarding the case set up by the claimants. Accordingly, it is submitted that
the impugned award is unsustainable in law. By placing reliance on the
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Rammilan Yadav and Others, decided on
28th of August, 2019 in MA No. 3496, it is contended that in the absence of
any reliable evidence on record and the involvement of the offending vehicle
being doubtful, the compensation is not payable by the Insurance Company.
Also, by placing reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt. Mahadevi and Others vs. Vrandavan Rawat and
Others, decided on 25th of April, 2024 in Misc. Appeal No. 1088 of 2013, it
is contended that only on the basis of challan papers filed by the police and
the admission of the factum of accident by the owner/driver of the offending
vehicle, the same cannot be accepted until and unless it is proved through
documentary as well as oral evidence.
14. It is further argued by learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company that the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- per month without any proper basis. The Insurance Company
had specifically disputed that the deceased was actively practising as an
advocate; nevertheless, his income was assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month
without sufficient evidence.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that the grounds for false implication of the offending vehicle raised
by the Insurance Company are wholly misconceived and baseless; and are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
9 MA-8030-2024
not borne out from the evidence available on record. The FIR lodged against
the offending vehicle has been registered by the police authorities after due
investigation and the involvement of the offending vehicle has been found
proved by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has committed a grave
error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- without
properly appreciating the evidence available on record. It is submitted that
the deceased was a qualified advocate and had been practicing law as a
senior counsel for about 30 years in District Court, Bhind, and Civil Court,
Mehagaon. The deceased was a reputed advocate in the region and was
earning substantially more than the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal.
It is further submitted that the claimants had incurred an amount of
approximately Rs.2,00,000/- towards the treatment of the deceased before his
death, whereas the Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.36,950/- towards
medical expenses without properly appreciating the evidence available on
record. Hence, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced suitably in accordance
with the evidence and settled principles of law. Learned counsel for the
claimants, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Shailaja and Others vs. Pavan B. Udupudi and Another, decided on 20th
of January, 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No.18550 of 2023, contends that the
absence of income proof cannot be a ground to deny just and reasonable
compensation, particularly when there is no dispute that the deceased was
having a standing of long years at the Bar. Further, learned counsel, by
placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sameem
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
10 MA-8030-2024
Begum and Others vs. K. Venkat Swamy and Another, decided on 14th of
August, 2026, arising out of SLP(C) No. 18553 of 2023, contends that after
adding 10%, each of the claimants would be entitled to Rs.48,400/- each
under the head of consortium, whereas the Claims Tribunal has only
awarded Rs.44,000/- to each of the claimants, which is on the lower side.
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
17. The issue that arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether
the learned Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in allowing the
claim petition preferred by the claimants and whether, in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, the claim preferred by the claimants is liable to be
rejected on the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR and false implication of
the vehicle?
18. The Apex Court in the case of Sunita & others Vs. Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486 has
held as under:-
"21. We have no hesitation in observing that such a
hypertechnical and trivial approach of the High Court cannot be
sustained in a case for compensation under the Act, in
connection with a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of
a family member. Recently, in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. [Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 819] (to which one of us, Khanwilkar, J. was a party), this
Court has restated the position as to the approach to be adopted
in accident claim cases. In that case, the Court was dealing with a
case of an accident between a motorcycle and a jeep, where the
Tribunal had relied upon the FIR and charge-sheet, as well as the
accompanying statements of the complainant and witnesses, to
opine that the police records confirmed the occurrence of an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
11 MA-8030-2024
accident and also the identity of the offending jeep but the High
Court had overturned [Pratap Singh v. Mangla Ram, 2017 SCC
OnLine Raj 3765] that finding inter alia on the ground that the
oral evidence supporting such a finding had been discarded by
the Tribunal itself and that reliance solely on the document
forming part of the police record was insufficient to arrive at
such a finding. Disapproving that approach, this Court, after
adverting to multitude of cases under the Act, noted as follows:
(Mangla Ram case [Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 819] , SCC pp. 667-71, paras 22-25)
“22. The question is: Whether this approach of the High Court
can be sustained in law? While dealing with a similar situation,
this Court in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009)
13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1101] noted the defence of the driver and conductor of the bus
which inter alia was to cast a doubt on the police record
indicating that the person standing at the rear side of the bus,
suffered head injury when the bus was being reversed without
blowing any horn. This Court observed that while dealing with
the claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, the Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the
pleadings of the parties, its function is to determine the amount
of fair compensation. In paras 11-15, the Court observed thus:
(SCC pp. 533-34)
‘11. While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal stricto
sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its
function being to determine the amount of fair
compensation in the event an accident has taken place by
reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. It is
true that occurrence of an accident having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 166 of the Act is a sine qua
non for entertaining a claim petition but that would not
mean that despite evidence to the effect that death of the
claimant's predecessor had taken place by reason of an
accident caused by a motor vehicle, the same would be
ignored only on the basis of a post-mortem report vis-à-vis
the averments made in a claim petition.
12. The deceased was a constable. Death took place near a
police station. The post-mortem report clearly suggests that
the deceased died of a brain injury. The place of accident is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
12 MA-8030-2024
not far from the police station. It is, therefore, difficult to
believe the story of the driver of the bus that he slept in the
bus and in the morning found a dead body wrapped in a
blanket. If the death of the constable had taken place earlier,
it is wholly unlikely that his dead body in a small town like
Dharampur would remain undetected throughout the night
particularly when it was lying at a bus-stand and near a
police station. In such an event, the court can presume that
the police officers themselves should have taken possession
of the dead body.
13. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly
proceeded on the basis that apparently there was absolutely
no reason to falsely implicate Respondents 2 and 3. The
claimant was not at the place of occurrence. She, therefore,
might not be aware of the details as to how the accident
took place but the fact that the first information report had
been lodged in relation to an accident could not have been
ignored.
14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's
witnesses might have occurred but the core question before
the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as
to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident
or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the
Court was required to apply the principle underlying the
burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of
the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped
in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early
hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2
and 3.
15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly
taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be
borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to
be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High
Court should have taken into consideration the respective
stories set forth by both the parties.’(emphasis supplied)
The Court restated the legal position that the claimants
were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
13 MA-8030-2024
reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the Tribunal while
dealing with the motor accident cases. Even in that case,
the view taken by the High Court to reverse similar
findings, recorded by the Tribunal was set aside.
23. Following the enunciation in Bimla Devi case [Bimla Devi v.
Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] , this Court in Parmeshwari v. Amir
Chand [Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 :
(2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 828 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 605] noted that
when filing of the complaint was not disputed, the decision of the
Tribunal ought not to have been reversed by the High Court
[Amir Chand v. Parmeshwari, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 9302] on
the ground that nobody came from the office of the SSP to prove
the complaint. The Court appreciated the testimony of the
eyewitnesses in paras 12 & 13 and observed thus: (Parmeshwari
case [Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 : (2011)
4 SCC (Civ) 828 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 605] , SCC p. 638)
‘12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed
[Amir Chand v. Parmeshwari, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H
9302] the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of
Umed Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is
totally conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the
appellant but as a good citizen, Umed Singh extended his
help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's
chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets
medical treatment. The evidence of Umed Singh cannot be
disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint
himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that
the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not
sensitised enough to appreciate the plight of the victim.
13. The other so-called reason in the High Court's order
was that as the claim petition was filed after four months of
the accident, the same is ‘a device to grab money from the
insurance company’. This finding in the absence of any
material is certainly perverse. The High Court appears to be
not cognizant of the principle that in a road accident claim,
the strict principles of proof in a criminal case are not
attracted. …’
24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P)
Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M.
Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
14 MA-8030-2024
wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal
case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for
which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be
rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing
that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness,
punishable under IPC, is more stringent than negligence
sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The observation
made in para 3 of the judgment would throw some light as to
what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident
cases. The same reads thus: (SCC pp. 458-59)
‘3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country,
specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally.
This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as
has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an
initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special
care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers
and owners do not escape liability merely because of some
doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases,
culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where
it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to
niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are
emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by
transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial
laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient
disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful
driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of
public transport must bring owner and driver to their
responsibility to their neighbour. Indeed, the State must
seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second
aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the
compensation or undue parsimony practised by tribunals.
We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs
and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential
foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of
citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in
compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the
enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in
compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several
years. The States must appoint sufficient number of
tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick
disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained
may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
15 MA-8030-2024
Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.’
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar
situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was
discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that
case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the
accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be
overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered
against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing
negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court
restated the settled principle that the evidence of the
claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly
the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been applied as noted in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v.
Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] . In paras 8 & 9 of the
reported decision, the dictum in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Shila Datta [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila
Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 328] , has been adverted to as under:
(Dulcina Fernandes case [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , SCC p. 650) ‘8. In United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta [United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Civ) 798 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 328] while considering the
nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 a three-Judge Bench of this Court has culled out
certain propositions of which Propositions (ii), (v) and (vi)
would be relevant to the facts of the present case and,
therefore, may be extracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 518, para
10)
“10. … (ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as
the claimant is required to make an application in a form
prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading
where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the
Tribunal. *
(v) Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and
determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an
adversarial litigation. …
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
16 MA-8030-2024
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary
procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more
persons possessing special knowledge of and matters
relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry.”
9. The following further observation available in para 10 of
the Report would require specific note: (Shila Datta case
[United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, (2011) 10
SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri)
328] , SCC p. 519) “10. … We have referred to the
aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal
cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the
litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination
of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due
enquiry, in accordance with the statute.”’
In para 10 of Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v.
Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , the Court opined that
non-examination of witness per se cannot be treated as fatal
to the claim set up before the Tribunal. In other words, the
approach of the Tribunal should be holistic analysis of the
entire pleadings and evidence by applying the principles of
preponderance of probability.”
22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once
the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the
accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be
to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had
taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor
vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly
bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding
cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of
proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of
probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all
reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
[Emphasis Supplied]
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan reported
in (2011) 4 SCC 693 has held as under:-
"17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be
a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
17 MA-8030-2024
conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to
first rush to the police station immediately after an accident.
Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of
kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance
to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police
station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to
act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with
the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the
ground to deny justice to the victim.
18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the
evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents
of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the
court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has
not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent
persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the
claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The
purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily
to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal
offences.
19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident
so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but
delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the
claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is
vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging
the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings,
if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and
cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in
genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and
kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of
tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if,
there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much
more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by
cogent reasons." [Emphasis Supplied]
20. The Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhilawe v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2020) 18 SCC 224 has held as under:-
"50. The FIR was lodged within three days of the accident. In
the case of a major accident of the kind as in this case, where
the said truck had turned turtle and fallen into a river, slight
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
18 MA-8030-2024
delay if any, on the part of the traumatised driver to lodge an
FIR, cannot defeat the legitimate claim of the insured. Of
course in our view, there was no delay at all in lodging the
FIR. In case of a serious accident in course of inter-State
transportation of goods, delay of 20 days in lodging a claim
is also no delay at all. It is nobody's case that the claim
application filed by the appellant was time-barred. Moreover,
the insurer had, in any case, duly sent its
Surveyors/Assessors to assess the loss. The claim of the
appellant could not have, in this case, been resisted, either on
the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, or on the ground of
delay in lodging an accident information report, or on the
ground of delay in making a claim.
51. In any case, as held by this Court in Om Prakash v.
Reliance General Insurance [Om Prakash v. Reliance
General Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ)
759] delay in intimation of accident, or submission of
documents due to unavoidable circumstances, should not bar
settlement of genuine claims. "
[Emphasis Supplied]
21. On perusal of the law as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the cases quoted hereinabove, it is evident that mere delay in lodging of the
FIR cannot be a ground to reject or disbelieve the claim of the claimants in
motor accident cases, in case the delay is explained and the claim is
otherwise proved by the surrounding circumstances. The settled legal
position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that while considering a
claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal is required to adopt
a pragmatic approach and examine the evidence on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability, and a hyper-technical approach with regard to
delay in lodging the FIR ought not to be adopted when the occurrence of the
accident and involvement of the offending vehicle are otherwise established
from the evidence available on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
19 MA-8030-2024
22. When the facts of the present case in hand are examined in the
light of the law laid down hereinabove and the challenge made by Insurance
Company regarding false implication of the offending vehicle is concerned,
it is an admitted fact that the accident took place on 10.08.2019, the deceased
Narendra Singh Solanki died on 12.08.2019, whereas FIR (Exhibit P-18) was
registered on 08.10.2019, after a delay of about 59 days. However, the record
of the Claims Tribunal shows that Merg Intimation (Exhibit P21) was
received at Police Station Kampoo from J.A. Hospital, Trauma Centre,
Gwalior, on 12.08.2019, i.e., on the date of death of the deceased. Thereafter,
Rojnamcha Sanha (Exhibit P20) was recorded at Police Station Lahar on
30.09.2019 on the basis of information received from the Office of the
Superintendent of Police regarding the death of Narendra Singh Solanki in a
road accident. Thus, the factum of the accident and death of the deceased had
already come to the notice of the police much prior to the registration of FIR
(Exhibit P18).
23. It is further significant that FIR (Exhibit P-18) was registered by
Head Constable Suresh Chand Jha after enquiry and not on the basis of any
complaint lodged by Upendra Singh. The delay in investigation, if any, is on
the part of the police authorities and not the claimants. Even otherwise, since
a Merg was recorded and information was made to the police authorities, on
which the investigation was conducted, it was not incumbent upon the
claimants to lodge a separate formal FIR. The record of the Claims Tribunal
demonstrates that information regarding the alleged accident was promptly
conveyed to the police authorities on the very date of accident, triggering an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
20 MA-8030-2024
enquiry during which, the delay occurred before the formal FIR was
registered. Since the police enquiry was already underway, it was not
incumbent upon the claimants to lodge a separate formal FIR.
24. Further, the FIR specifically mentions Tractor No. MP-30-AB-
2144 and driver Upendra Singh Sikarwar, and records that during the
investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, who stated that the
deceased had sustained injuries in a road accident caused by the said tractor.
The tractor was thereafter seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P-30). Merely
because the Investigating Officer, Suresh Chand Jha, or Kunjesh Pratap
Singh Solanki was not examined before the Claims Tribunal, the entire
police investigation and the material collected during the investigation cannot
be discarded, particularly when the occurrence of the accident and
involvement of the tractor are also supported by the testimony of Rajpal
Singh Tomar (AW-2) and the admissions made by the owner Ashok Singh
and driver Upendra Singh.
25. The contention of the Insurance Company that the tractor was
falsely implicated because it was seized on 29.11.2019 and the charge-sheet
was filed on 30.11.2019, or that the owner and driver admitted the
occurrence of the accident, does not, by itself, establish collusion or
fabrication. The Insurance Company has not produced any cogent or
convincing material to establish that the offending tractor was not involved
in the accident. In a claim case, the claimants are required to establish their
case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not by the strict
standard applicable to a criminal trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
21 MA-8030-2024
26. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for
Insurance Company, viz. Vanita and Others (supra), Rammilan Yadav and
Others (supra) and Smt. Mahadevi and Others (supra), do not render any
assistance to the Insurance Company in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, as the involvement of the offending vehicle has otherwise been
established on the basis of evidence available on record.
27. In the light of the settled legal position and the evidence available
on record, this Court finds that the involvement of Tractor No.MP-30-AB-
2144 and rash and negligent driving by its driver, Upendra Singh Sikarwar,
have been sufficiently established. Consequently, the plea of false
implication and objection regarding delay in registration of FIR (Exhibit
P18) are without substance. Accordingly, M.A. No.8030 of 2024 filed by the
Insurance Company deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
28. So far as the claim of the claimants for enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased
Narendra Singh Solanki ought to have been assessed at Rs.40,000/- is
concerned, this Court has carefully considered the evidence available on
record. Pawan Pratap Solanki (A.W.1), son of the deceased, has deposed that
his father was practising as an advocate at Mehgaon and was earning
approximately Rs.40,000/- to Rs.42,000/- per month. The claimants also
produced certificate (Ex.P13) showing that the deceased was a member of
the Bar Association, Mehgaon. However, in his cross-examination, Pawan
Pratap Solanki admitted that Ex.P13 did not disclose since when the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
22 MA-8030-2024
deceased had been practising at Mehgaon. He further admitted that the said
certificate was issued approximately three years after the accident and no
certificate issued by the State Bar Council was produced on record. Apart
from Ex.P13, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence,
such as income-tax returns, accounts, fee receipts or any other material, to
establish that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from his legal
profession. Ex.P13 merely establishes his membership of the Bar
Association, Mehgaon, and does not establish his actual income. The
claimants have not placed any material on record to indicate the nature and
extent of the deceased's legal practice, the number of cases handled by him
or the income actually derived therefrom. Under these circumstances, the
Claims Tribunal, having regard to the date of the accident, i.e., 10.08.2019,
the fact that the deceased was practising as an advocate at Mehgaon and
other evidence available on record, assessed his monthly income at
Rs.15,000/- on a reasonable and notional basis. The said assessment cannot
be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record so as to
warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the finding of the Claims
Tribunal assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- is
affirmed. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shailaja and Others
(supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the claimants, may not have any
applicability in the given facts and circumstances of the case available on
record.
29. So far as the question regarding enhancement under the head of
consortium of Rs.48,400/- by placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
23 MA-8030-2024
Supreme Court in the case of Sameem Begum and Others (supra) by learned
counsel for the claimants is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has already
awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- each to the two claimants under the head of
consortium, taking into consideration the date of the alleged accident, i.e.,
10th of August, 2019. The claimants have not demonstrated any error in the
impugned Award warranting further enhancement under this head. The
amount awarded towards consortium is, accordingly, maintained.
30. The claimants have also sought enhancement of medical expenses,
contending that approximately Rs.2,00,000/- was incurred towards the
treatment of deceased Narendra Singh Solanki, whereas the Claims Tribunal
awarded Rs.36,950/- under this head. However, the Claims Tribunal has
awarded the said amount on the basis of the documentary evidence produced
before it. The claimants have not been able to establish that the entire amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- was actually incurred towards the treatment of the deceased
or that any admissible medical bill or document was ignored by the Claims
Tribunal. Therefore, no further enhancement under the head of medical
expenses is warranted.
31. Thus, upon consideration of the entire evidence available on
record, this Court finds that the assessment of compensation made by the
Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The
claimants have failed to establish any legally sustainable ground for
enhancement either with regard to the income of the deceased, consortium or
medical expenses. Accordingly, the Award dated 20.07.2024 does not call
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26508
24 MA-8030-2024
for any interference.
32. Consequently, M.A. No.329 of 2025 filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation is hereby dismissed. The Award dated
20.07.2024 passed by the Claims Tribunal is affirmed.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, M.A. No.8030 of 2024 filed
by the Insurance Company and M.A. No.329 of 2025 filed by the claimants
stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
34. A copy of this order be kept in connected M.A. No.329 of 2025.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 03-09-2026
19:48:36