IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

<>

ON THE 23

<>

rd

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

MISC. APPEAL No. 4752 of 2024

<>

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. OFFICE AT B.G. ROAD GUNA

<>

Versus

DEEPMALA AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and

5.

Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6

and 7.

Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2

and 4.

ORDER

<>

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.03.2024 passed

by the Fourth Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Guna

(M.P.) in Claim Case No. 108/2023, seeking exoneration from its liability as

well as reduction of the compensation amount awarded to the claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5 preferred a

claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking

compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Anil

1 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The deceased died in a road traffic

accident on 06-05-2023, allegedly involving a tractor bearing registration

No. MP 08 AC 3149, which was attached to an uninsured trolley. On the

fateful day, the tractor was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

The claimants submitted that the deceased was 29 years old at the time of the

accident and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as a motor mechanic at a

TVS Showroom.

3. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed their written statements, and the

appellant insurance company also opposed the claim application on the

grounds that no accident occurred involving the vehicle as stated in the claim

petition. The earnings and dependency of the claimants were also denied, and

other defenses were raised, praying for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating

the facts and the material on record, allowed the claim application, holding

the claimants/respondents no. 1 to 5 entitled to a compensation of Rs.

44,93,000/- along with interest.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the Insurance Company

has preferred this appeal, submitting that the award passed by the Claims

Tribunal is contrary to the settled provisions of law and inconsistent with the

facts, circumstances, and material on record. It is further submitted that the

Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the legal aspect that the deceased

was struck by the trolley, which was uninsured. It is contended that the

Tribunal failed to consider the legal requirement that the trolley must be

separately registered and insured. Since the trolley was not insured under the

2 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

policy, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company for an

accident involving the uninsured trolley. Moreover, it is argued that when

both the tractor and trolley are involved in an accident, both the tractor and

the trailer must be insured in order to hold the Insurance Company liable. As

such, the Insurance Company should not be held liable for the accident

caused by the uninsured trolley, and the impugned award deserves to be set

aside, exonerating the appellant Insurance Company. It is also submitted that

the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 20,000/-

per month without any substantial evidence, and that the dependency has

been assessed on a higher side. The Insurance Company further contends

that, as per the judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport

<>

Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121

<>

,

<>

personal expenses should be

deducted at 1/3rd, not 1/4th, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal.

6. In support of their submission, counsel for the Insurance Company

has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Dhondubai vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude thr. LRs.

<>

, 2023 ACJ

<>

1979, and

<>

IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD vs. Kumar Singh & Ors.

<>

,

<>

SLP No. CC 12585/2012.

<>

7. Per contra, counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award

passed by the Claims Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of

the Claims Tribunal.

9. The first issue to be decided is whether the Insurance Company can

be exonerated from liability on the grounds that the trolley attached to the

3 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

tractor was uninsured.

10. It is undisputed that the tractor bearing Registration No. MP 08 AC

3149 was attached to an uninsured trolley. The deceased got struck by the

trolley while it was being reversed, resulting in his death. The tractor was

insured, but the trolley was not.

11. As per Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a trolley is

considered a vehicle and must be registered under Section 61 of the MV Act.

Furthermore, Section 146 of the MV Act mandates that every vehicle,

including a trolley, must be insured. In the present case, the tractor was

insured, but the trolley was not. However, it is crucial to note that the

accident occurred due to the tractor pulling the trolley, and it was the tractor's

operation that led to the accident.

Section 2 (28) of Motor Vehicles Act is reads as under:-

<>

(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically

propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of

propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal

source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been

attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon

fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a

factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less

than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding1

[twenty-five cubic centimetres];

Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reads as under:-

<>

61. Application of Chapter to trailers.—(1) The provisions of this

Chapter shall apply to the registration of trailers as they apply to

the registration of any other motor vehicle.

(2) The registration mark assigned to a trailer shall be displayed in

such manner on the side of the drawing vehicle, as may be

prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) No person shall drive a motor vehicle to which a trailer is or

trailers are attached unless the registration mark of the motor

vehicle so driven is displayed on the trailer or on the last trailer in

the train, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed

4 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

by the Central Government.

Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is read as under:-

<>

146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.—(1) No

person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any

other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there

is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or

that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance

complying with the requirements of this Chapter:

[Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry,

dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of

insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of

1991).]

Explanation.—A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid

employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the

vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not

be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he

knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in

force.

(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the

Central Government or a State Government and used for

Government purposes unconnected with any commercial

enterprise.

(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the

operation of sub-section (1) any vehicle owned by any of the

following authorities, namely:—

(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle

is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial

enterprise;

(b) any local authority;

(c) any State transport undertaking:

Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such

authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by

that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf

under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of

any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in

its employment may incur to third parties.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “appropriate

Government” means the Central Government or a State

Government, as the case may be, and—

(i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central

Government or any State Government, means the Central

Government or that State Government;

(ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the

Central Government and one or more State Governments, means

the Central Government;

(iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking or any

local authority, means that Government which has control over

that undertaking or authority."

5 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

12. But in the present case, vehicle involved in the accident was the

tractor, which was insured. The trolley, although uninsured, was attached to

the tractor, and it is not the case that the accident was solely caused by the

trolley. The tractor's actions, including the reckless driving and reversing,

were the proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the liability of the

tractor and its insurer extends to the accident caused by the tractor, even

though the trolley was uninsured.

13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal

rightly held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. The tractor,

which was insured, played a direct role in the accident, and the insurer of the

tractor is liable for the compensation despite the trolley being uninsured. No

illegality or perversity has been committed by the Claims Tribunal in

holding the Insurance Company liable.

14. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is

devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

<>

in regard to

exoneration of Insurance company from its liability.

15. So far as contention of appellant/Insurance Company is concerned

regarding quantum of compensation, it is submitted by appellant that the

Claims Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the

deceased- Anil to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month without any substantial

documents. It is further submitted that the claims tribunal has erred in

deducting towards personal expenses i.e 1/4th. As per the judgment in Sarla

<>

Verma (supra),

<>

1/3rd of personal expenses must be deducted only.

16. On perusal of impugned Award it was found that claimants have

6 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

unable to adduced any substantial evidence in regard to the income of the

deceased - Anil, but the Claims Tribunal has held that the deceased was a

skilled labour and assumed his income to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month.

In the case of Kirti and Another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2021)

<>

2 SCC 166,

<>

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if claimant(s) are failed to

produce any documentary evidence in regard to income of the deceased, but

from statement of the witnesses, documentary evidence and circumstances of

the accident, it is apparent that deceased was comparatively more

educationally qualified and skilled, then his income shall be assessed on the

basis of Minimum Wages Act.

17. In the present case, claimants are unable to adduce any substantial

evidence in regard to the income of the deceased, but it was found that

deceased was a skilled worker with an ITI qualification, and in the absence

of evidence regarding his income, his earnings should be assessed as per the

Minimum Wages Act for a skilled person, which amounts to Rs. 11,885/- per

<>

month

<>

. Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding the income

of the deceased is set aside. In the considered opinion of this Court, for

calculating the compensation, income of the deceased be assessed to the tune

of Rs. 11,885/- per month

<>

as per Minimum Wages Act of a skilled person.

18. Further, so far as contention of appellant is concerned regarding

deduction of personal expenses, the Claims Tribunal in para 55 of the

impugned Award has held that wife, children and mother of the deceased

were dependence upon the deceased. Thus, as per decision of the Apex Court

in the case of Sarla Verma (supra)

<>

, 1/3rd deduction should be applied

7 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

towards personal expenses, but the Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted

1/4th towards personal expenses, therefore, compensation must be assessed

by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Hence, findings of the Claims

Tribunal in this regard is also set aside.

19. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation

under the following heads:-

HEAD

<>

AMOUNT

<>

Income Rs.11,885 X12= Rs.1,42,620/- P.A.

Future Prospects@40% Rs.1,99,668/-

Dependency 1/3 Rs.1,33,112/-

Multiplier 17 Rs.22,62,904/-

Other Heads:-

<>

Loss of Consortium Rs.44,000 X 4= Rs.1,76,000/-

Loss of Estate and funeral expensesRs.33,000/-

Total = Rs.24,71,904/-

<>

20. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the

present case comes to Rs.24,71,904/-

<>

as against the sum of Rs.44,93,000/-

awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation amount

is reduced from Rs.44,93,000/-

<>

to Rs.24,71,904/-.

<>

The aforesaid reduced amount

shall also bear interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of the

filing of the claim petition till its realization. Insurance Company is entitled to get

excessive amount (if already deposited) from the Claims Tribunal in accordance

with law.

21. In the result, the instant appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly

<>

allowed

<>

and stands disposed of

<>

to the extent indicated herein-above.

8 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135

(HIRDESH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

*VJ*

9 MA-4752-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7135