Madhya Pradesh High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Woman Who Fell While Getting Off Bus Gets Compensation Raised From Rs 15,000 To Rs 50,000 By MP HC

Smt. Bharti Guptav.Jandel Singh Yadav

Woman Who Fell While Getting Off Bus Gets Compensation Raised From Rs 15,000 To Rs 50,000 By MP HC. Smt. Bharti Gupta vs Jandel Singh Yadav. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the 110-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The court held

The Court allowed the delay-condonation application and partly allowed the appeal.

It also directed

It modified the award to grant total compensation of ₹50,000, inclusive of the ₹15,000 already awarded.

The enhanced amount of ₹35,000 carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization; all other terms of the award remain unchanged.

01Facts

The appellant challenged the award dated 25 April 2025 of the 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, which granted her ₹15,000 for injuries sustained in a bus accident on 21 February 2023.

¶ 5–6

The accident, negligence and liability were undisputed; the appeal concerned the adequacy of compensation.

¶ 5–6

The appellant sought condonation of a 110-day delay in filing the appeal, submitting that she was poor and unfamiliar with legal procedure.

¶ 1–2

She argued that the Tribunal had not adequately considered her injuries, including a tooth injury recorded in the MLC, and the pain and incidental expenses she suffered.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the 110-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶ 1–3

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹15,000 was inadequate and required enhancement.

¶ 5–7, 10

03Law Applied

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown.

¶ 1

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

¶ 5

The Court assessed whether the compensation awarded was adequate in light of the injuries, medical evidence and pain and suffering; it cited no precedent or more specific compensation formula.

¶ 10–11

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the explanation for delay and, noting the absence of a written objection from the other side, condoned the 110-day delay.

¶ 3

On compensation, it considered the MLC evidence of a tooth injury, the nature of the injuries and the appellant’s pain and suffering.

¶ 10–11

It found the Tribunal’s ₹15,000 award inadequate and considered ₹50,000 an appropriate total award in the circumstances.

¶ 10–11

05Holding

The Court allowed the delay-condonation application and partly allowed the appeal.

¶ 3, 11–13

It modified the award to grant total compensation of ₹50,000, inclusive of the ₹15,000 already awarded.

¶ 11–13

The enhanced amount of ₹35,000 carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization; all other terms of the award remain unchanged.

¶ 11–13
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Smt. Bharti GuptavsJandel Singh Yadav

Madhya Pradesh High Court · November 04, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment