Suhagrani vs Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd.

2025 INSC 837 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2025 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25092 OF 2024)

SUHAGRANI AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein (i.e., the claimants before the Motor Vehicles

Claims Tribunal) are challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2024

passed in Misc. Appeal No.5345 of 2023 by the High Court of Madhya

Signature Not Verified Pradesh whereunder the appeal filed by the insurance company has been Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi

allowed and the claim petition has been dismissed and the judgment and Date: 2025.07.14 17:57:09 IST Reason:

1

award passed by MACT, Deori, District Sagar (M.P) in MACC No.09/2022

dated 25.01.2023 has been set aside.

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

3. A claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act came to be filed by

the appellants herein seeking compensation of Rs.1,88,08,448/- contending

inter-alia that on 24.09.2021 Mr. Nathuram Ahirwar, husband of claimant

No.1 and father of claimant No’s. 2-4, while travelling on his motorcycle

was hit by a mini-truck (Ape pick up vehicle) bearing registration No. MP

04 GB 5604 from hindside and as a result he fell down and sustained injuries

due to which he expired on 01.10.2021 while being treated. On being

notified of the claim the insurer filed its statements of objections contending

inter alia that accident had occurred due to negligence of deceased himself

namely he had lost balance while driving and therefore deceased fell down

from his vehicle and the theory of the offending vehicle having caused the

accident is far from truth. It was also contended that claimants had colluded

with the driver of the ‘Ape’ vehicle (offending vehicle) to raise the plea of

accident having been caused by ‘Ape’ vehicle which is totally incorrect and

even otherwise the driver of ‘Ape’ vehicle did not possess valid driving

license and as such insurer of the offending vehicle is not required to

indemnify the claim. The respondent No.1 before the tribunal i.e. the driver

2 of the offending vehicle had been placed ex-parte. On the basis of the

pleadings of the party, the tribunal framed five issues for its determination.

4. In order to discharge the burden cast on the appellants, wife of the

deceased got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined her son i.e.,

claimant No.3 as PW-2 and in all produced 48 documents which were

marked as Exhibits P1 to 48. On behalf of the insurance company none were

examined, and 3 documents were produced in support of the defence.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:

5. The tribunal after considering the material on record held that the

accident had been caused by the offending vehicle and the deceased had

expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, tribunal awarded

a total compensation of Rs.12,43,324/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date

of filing of claim petition till date of payment.

FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT:

6. The insurer of the offending vehicle challenged the judgment and

award of the tribunal which came to be allowed primarily on two grounds,

namely, (i) the Claimant No.3, Naresh Kumar, PW-2 had admitted that he

had given his statement before the police which was to the effect that

deceased had sustained injuries after falling from the motorcycle due to

3 imbalance and as such the theory of the accident having been caused by the

offending vehicle is far-fetched; (ii) the wife of the deceased-PW.1 who was

the pillion rider had witnessed the accident and she had admitted that she

had not seen the registration number of the offending vehicle and the story

of her son in law who was following them having seen the registration

number of the offending vehicle cannot be believed as he was not examined.

On these amongst other grounds as discussed under the impugned judgment,

the High Court had allowed the appeal of the insurer by absolving the insurer

of its liability and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal by the

claimants.

CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF PARTIES:

7. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the

claimants that tribunal had passed a well-reasoned award by taking into

consideration the statement of PW-1, i.e., the wife of the deceased who was

a pillion rider of the vehicle which deceased was driving, and her evidence

could not have been brushed aside by the appellate court. He would further

contend that PW-2 was not present at the time of the accident and High Court

had committed a grave error in giving undue importance to his statement

recorded by the police particularly when he had retraced his statement or in

other words had denied giving his statement to the police, when he deposed

before the Tribunal. It is also his contention that non-examination of son-in-

4 law of the claimant No.1 was not fatal as was sought to be made out by the

High Court for dismissing the claim petition, since, overwhelming evidence

clearly establish the accident having been caused by the offending vehicle.

Hence, he prays for appeal being allowed and has also sought for

enhancement of the compensation contending inter alia, that the

compensation awarded by the tribunal under all heads is abysmally on the

lower side.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer would

support the impugned judgment. By elaborating his submissions he would

also contend that when the eye-witness to the accident has clearly stated

before the police about the manner in which the accident had occurred, there

was no occasion for the tribunal to discard said evidence, and High Court

has rightly interfered with the award of the tribunal. Hence, he prays for

appeal being dismissed.

OUR FINDINGS:

9. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and on

perusal of the case papers in general and particularly the evidence of PW-1

namely the claimant No.1, it would emerge therefrom that PW-1 has deposed

that she was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by her

deceased husband and said vehicle was hit by a mini truck from hindside

resulting in both PW-1 and the deceased falling down and deceased having

5 sustained grievous injuries. The evidence tendered before the tribunal

particularly Ex.P-02 (MLC Information to Discharge, Neuron Hospital),

Ex.P-06 i.e., death report, Ex.P-07 death information sent to the police

station, Gaurjhamar, Ex.P-08 FIR, Ex.P-11 i.e., the final report would clearly

indicate that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle namely mini truck. However, by

relying upon the statement of Naresh, PW-2 the insurer has made an attempt

to stave off its liability by contending PW-2 had admitted before the

jurisdictional police that deceased had himself fallen on account of his

vehicle having fallen due to loss of balance. This statement made by PW2

before the jurisdictional police has found favour with the High Court and

thereby disbelieved the plea of the claimants which had been accepted by

the Tribunal. However, the High Court erred in not taking into consideration

the fact that PW-2 when confronted while being cross-examined with his

statement made to the jurisdictional police exhibit D-1 has denied having

given such statement. He has also specifically deposed that he has not stated

before the police that his father had fallen from the motorcycle on his own

accord. He has specifically denied that false complaint has been lodged by

the claimant before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police who

had recorded the statement (Ex-D1) of PW-2 was not examined. No attempts

have been made by the insurer of the offending vehicle to prove the contents

of Ex-D1. This is yet another reason as to why the findings recorded by the 6 High Court in this regard cannot be sustained. The fact that the jurisdictional

police had conducted investigation and recorded the statement of various

persons during course of investigation had resulted in filing of the

chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle which is not in

dispute has been completely ignored by the High Court and it has proceeded

to doubt the very occurrence of the accident, by ignoring the vital evidence

available on record. No reason has been assigned by the High Court as to

why the said evidence was being brushed aside or not taken into

consideration.

10. PW-1, the wife of the deceased who was the pillion rider was the

best witness, as she was accompanying the deceased and was present at the

time of the accident. She had entered the witness box and deposed as to the

manner in which the accident had occurred. Non-filing of the complaint

immediately after the occurrence of the accident by her would not be fatal

particularly when the near and dear of the claimants were in trauma and were

attending to the immediate requirement of medical attention to the deceased.

From the evidence on record it would reveal that appellants were running

from one hospital to another as advised by the doctors to save the precious

life of the husband of the first appellant. As such, we are of the considered

view that the High Court fell into error in ignoring the evidence of PW-1 or

rather getting swayed by the fact that the son in law of PW-1 who was

7 following them having not been examined as fatal to the claimant’s plea.

Further it is to be noted that, at no point of time the insurer has challenged

the chargesheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. For these

cumulative reasons, we are unable to accept the arguments canvassed on

behalf of the insurer who has reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit

filed before this Court and same stands rejected and consequently findings

recorded by the High Court are liable to be set aside and accordingly are set

aside.

11. In so far as the determination of the compensation is concerned, the

tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,43,324/- with interest

@6% p.a. Though, appellants would vehemently contend that compensation

awarded by the tribunal is abysmally on the lower side and would elaborate

his submissions by contending that the deceased was engaged in agricultural

farming and used to earn Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- annually, we are

unable to accept the said contention for reason more than one. Firstly, claim

regarding the income of the deceased as pleaded cannot be accepted for the

simple reason that apart from the self-assertion of the appellants, no

documentary evidence of whatsoever nature has been placed on record to

establish the same. Even if it is accepted that the deceased was earning

income by carrying out agricultural operations and due to his death income

from the agricultural land is not lost. The agricultural land has remained with

8 the claimants and at the most the claimants would be entitled to be

compensated for “supervision charges” that they may have to incur in

carrying out the agricultural operations. Secondly, The tribunal had erred in

not considering that there would not have been total deprivation of the

pension to the wife of the deceased and in this regard no evidence has been

tendered or no questions having been posed in the cross-examination of PW-

1, itself is sufficient to hold or arrive at a conclusion that the loss of

dependency that had occasioned due to non-considering the agricultural

income has been offset by considering the fact that entire pension is not

deprived to the claimants or in other words there would have been loss of

pension probably to the extent of 50% only and the total pension of deceased

taken as loss of income to the dependents would offset the loss of income

from agricultural operations for the purpose of computation of loss of

dependency. Even if fresh exercise is undertaken to compute the

compensation, there could be only marginal increase and as such we do not

propose to enhance the compensation and/or reduce the same as awarded by

the Tribunal. Hence, we affirm the compensation awarded by the tribunal as

just and reasonable compensation.

12. Having regard to the fact that on the date of demise of the father of

claimant’s 2 to 4, were majors, the apportionment has to be commensurate

with their age and as such we are of the considered view that major portion

9 of the compensation has to be apportioned to the wife of the deceased

namely to the extent of 85% and the balance 15% in the ratio of 5:5:5 shall

be apportioned in favour of the claimants’ 2 to 4 i.e., appellant No’s.2 to 4

herein. The award of the tribunal to aforesaid extent stands modified, and

the registry of this Court is directed to draw the award accordingly.

13. In the above terms, the appeal stands allowed in part. No order as to

costs. Pending application(s) if any shall stand consigned to records.

……………………………., J.

[J.K. MAHESHWARI]

.……………………………., J.

[ARAVIND KUMAR] New Delhi;

July 14, 2025.

10