GEETA DUBEY & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

                 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 652 : 2024 INSC 998

                        Geeta Dubey & Ors.
                                 v.
               United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 14668 of 2024)
                               18 December 2024
               [B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of the cryptic order passed
       by the High Court setting aside the award passed by the MACT
       holding that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove
       the aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle implicated
       in the case.

                                   Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.173 – Appeals – Motor accident –
       Prosecution case that the respondent no. 2, who was driving
       the truck in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car in which
       the victim was travelling – Victim sustained serious injuries,
       was treated in the hospital and died after few days – Claim
       petition – MACT allowed the claim of the wife and son of the
       victim and awarded compensation against the respondents
       jointly and severally – High Court set aside the award holding
       that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the
       aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle implicated
       in the case – Correctness:
       Held: Appeal u/s.173 is essentially in the nature of the first appeal –
       High Court is under a legal obligation to decide all issues both on
       facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence – This is a
       fortiori when the High Court proposes to reverse the well-reasoned
       award – On facts, in a first appeal filed u/s. 173, the High Court
       made a short shrift of the matter and by a summary order reversed
       the detailed award passed by the MACT – Except for a fleeting
       reference to the evidence of the prosecution witness, no real
       discussion on the substance of his deposition – No reference at all
       to final report, the FIR, the seizure memo of the vehicle after the


* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                             653

     Geeta Dubey & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.


     issuance of s.133 notice and also no discussion on the findings of
     the MACT – Except for a bare assertion that the vehicle was wrongly
     involved, the insurance company which has setup a plea of collusion
     did nothing to make good its case – Judgment of the High Court
     wholly untenable – In claim cases, in case the accident is disputed
     or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the
     claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of
     probability and not beyond reasonable doubt – Applying the test of
     preponderance of probability, the claimants have established their
     case that it was the said truck which was involved in the accident
     with car wherein the deceased was travelling – Claimants having
     discharged the initial onus, if the insurance company had a case
     that there was collusion between the driver/owner of the truck and
     the claimants, it ought to discharge that burden – It is candidly
     admitted by the witness that they took no steps in this regard – On
     the principle of preponderance of probability, the claimants have
     established the involvement of vehicle – No reason for the police
     to falsely implicate the vehicle concerned and launch prosecution
     against the driver – No case for the insurance company that the
     police officer also colluded – Investigation by the police resulted in
     charge-sheet being filed – Findings of the MACT that death of the
     claimant’s husband was caused by the driving of the said truck by
     respondent no. 2 in a rash and negligent manner restored – No
     evidence adduced by the insurance company to show that the age
     was 58 years – Claimants proved that the age of the deceased was
     55 years – Judgment of the High Court quashed and set aside –
     Award passed by the MACT restored. [Paras 16-26]

                              Case Law Cited
     Sudarsan Puhan v. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty and Others [2018] 12 SCR
     1101 : (2018) 10 SCC 552; Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
     Corporation v. Mamta and Others [2016] 2 SCR 71 : (2016) 4 SCC
     172; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar and 12 Others
     (2000) 10 SCC 158; Sajeena Ikhbal and Others, v. Mini Babu
     George and Others [2024] 10 SCR 786 : (2024) SCC OnLine SC
     2883; Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
     & Ors. [2009] 6 SCR 362 : (2009) 13 SCC 530 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
654                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                              List of Keywords
       Cryptic order; Evidence to prove the accident; First Appeals;
       Rash and negligent manner; Compensation; Jointly and severally;
       Appreciating the evidence; Plea of collusion; Principle of
       preponderance of probability; Falsely implicate the vehicle.

                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14668 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2023 of the High Court
       of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MA No. 68 of 2022

                          Appearances for Parties
       Girijesh Pandey, Ms. Alpana Pandey, Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Avanish
       Pandey, Sohan Lal Adak, Sriram P., Advs. for the Appellants.
       Mrs. Nanita Sharma, Adv. for the Respondents.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal, filed by the claimants, assails the judgment and
       final order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya
       Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 2022. By the said
       appeal, the High Court, by a cryptic order, set aside the award of
       the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maihar, District
       Satna, Madhya Pradesh dated 25.03.2021 (in short ‘MACT’). The
       MACT had, by the said award, allowed the claim of appellant no. 1
       and 2 herein, who are the wife and son of the deceased Chakradhar
       Dubey and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,41,289/- against the
       respondents jointly and severally.
3.     The only ground on which the High Court has set aside the award
       is that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the
       aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle implicated in
       the case i.e. Truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197. So holding, the
       appeal of the insurance company was allowed and the award was
       completely set aside.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         655

     Geeta Dubey & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.


Brief facts :-
4.   According to the claimants, Chakradhar Dubey - the deceased was
     posted as Assistant Post-Master, Post Office Sarlanagar, Tehsil
     Maihar. The deceased was returning to his house at Purani Basti,
     Maihar sitting in car bearing No. MP-19-CB-5879 of his friend Narayan
     Das Tiwari, after his duty, on 18.06.2018. At about 08:15 PM, one
     kilometer ahead of Sonwari Toll Plaza, respondent no. 2 herein, who
     was the driver of the vehicle of respondent no. 3, while driving the
     vehicle, (a truck bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197) in a rash
     and negligent manner hit the car in which the deceased was sitting.
     As a result, Chakradhar Dubey suffered serious injuries and his spine
     was broken. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Maihar for treatment.
5.   On 21.06.2018, the First Information Report in Crime No. 352 of
     2018 was registered at Maihar Police Station under Sections 279
     and 337 of IPC. We have perused the First Information Report and
     we find the following recorded therein:
          “12. First Information contents:
          I am a resident of Housing Board Colony, Mehar, Police
          Station Mehar. I was coming with my father Narayan Das
          Tiwari son of Indramani Tiwari, aged 49 years, resident of
          Housing Board Colony Mehar, Chakradhar Dubey son of
          Late Liladhar Dubey, aged 49 years, resident of Chaurasia
          Mohalla, Purani Basti Mehar and Bharatlal Tiwari from
          Sarlanagar at around 08:15 p.m. of 18/06/18 in my car No.
          U.V. MP 19CB5879. As soon as we reached around 1 Km.
          ahead of Sonwari Toll Plaza, an unknown truck came from
          behind in high speed and hit the car. As a result of which,
          the car overturned and badly damaged. Due to hit, injured
          Chakradhar Dubey sustained injuries on his waist, throat
          and shoulder and Narayan Das Tiwari sustained serious
          injuries on his left palm. The driver of the truck ran away
          taking the truck from there. The injured were taken to CHC
          Mehar in an auto and were admitted there. After taking
          treatment, I have come at police station to lodge the report
          today on 21.06.18. The report was registered for the offences
          punishable under Section 279, 337 IPC and investigation
          was taken up and handed over to beat incharge.”
                                                (Emphasis supplied)
656                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


6.     What is important to note is the FIR does mention material particulars
       like time of the accident, the place of the accident and also the fact
       that it was an unknown truck which had hit the car, and about the
       injuries sustained by the deceased.
7.     The claim petition thereafter sets out that after obtaining treatment
       at Maihar Civil Hospital, Chakradhar Dubey was treated at Nagpur
       Arneja Institute of Cardiology Private Limited from 19.06.2018 and
       when he did not recover, he was taken back to Maihar, where he
       died on 28.06.2018.
8.     The claimant widow further avers that since she was busy with the
       treatment and thereafter due to the death, the programs relating
       thereto, she was not perfectly fit mentally to obtain particulars and file
       a claim. The claimant widow states that on being physically fit, she
       started collecting information about the incident. She came to know
       that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving
       of respondent no. 2 who drove the truck of respondent no. 3. The
       claimant widow gave the information to the Superintendent of Police.
9.     It further transpires from the record that the police had initially filed a
       closure report on 29.09.2018. However, thereafter the claimant widow
       submitted an application stating that the accident has been witnessed
       by Ashutosh @ Sonu Shukla, Kapil Pandey and Janardan Paroha
       resident of Sarlanagar. The charge-sheet avers that investigation was
       taken up again as per the order of S.D.O.P. Maihar and the statement
       of Sonu Shukla S/o Ram Lakhan was recorded along with statements
       of Janardan Paroha, Kapil Pandey, Praful Dubey and Narayan Das
       Tiwari. It is stated in the charge-sheet that as per their statements
       accident was caused by the driver of the truck bearing no. MP-19-
       HA-1197 by driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and
       hitting the car bearing No. MP-19-CB-5879; that Chakradhar Dubey,
       who was sitting in the car had died during the course of treatment
       and that the vehicle-truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 was seized.
       The truck was thereafter given on Supurdnama by the Court. The
       charge-sheet states that on completion of investigation, Challan No.
       656/2019 dated 25.08.2019 was prepared and filed in the court. In
       the charge-sheet, 20 witnesses are listed and R-2 Ajay Kumar Saket
       S/o Harideen Saket was shown as accused.
10. The claimants made a claim for Rs. 59,30,000/- on the basis that
    the deceased was 55 years of age and he was working as Assistant
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                          657

     Geeta Dubey & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.


     Post Master on a salary of Rs. 7,76,820/- per annum. A sum of
     Rs. 7,00,000/- was claimed towards compensation for treatment;
     loss of income of Rs. 51,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental
     and physical agony was claimed. In all, the amount claimed was
     Rs. 59,30,000/-
11. The insurance company disputed the claim. Before the MACT, PW-2
    Sonu Shukla was examined as an eyewitness who spoke about the
    accident having happened. The insurance company examined Raj
    Kumar Kachhwah on their behalf. The challan of the Criminal case
    was also perused by the MACT. The MACT held that the statement
    of the eye-witnesses had not been rebutted. It also recorded the
    following finding, particularly, on the aspect of how no complaint
    was made about the involvement of the alleged truck in an illegal
    manner in an accident:-
          “16. It is not disclosed in the perspective of above
          investigation and above case laws that the said motor
          vehicle has been involved in the case in false manner,
          in that situation when any action or complaint is made to
          the higher police officer about involvement of the alleged
          truck in the case in illegal manner has been made by the
          opposite party Insurance Company. Therefore, it is found
          proved on the basis of analysis that Car No. U.V.M.P. 19
          CB/5879 was hit from behind by the driver of Truck No.
          М.Р. 19 НА 1197 on the date of accident while driving the
          said vehicle carelessly and negligently, as a result of which,
          Chakradhar Dubey who was sitting in the said car was
          seriously injured and had died. It is contended by Opposite
          Party No.3 that there was contributory negligence on the
          part of Car No. M.P. 19 C.D. 5879 in which the deceased
          was sitting and contended that the accident took place due
          to the negligence of driver of the said car but no oral and
          documentary evidence has been produced in this regard.
          Therefore, Issue No. 1 is concluded in the affirmative and
          Issue Nos. 4 and 5 are concluded in the negative.”
12. It will be noticed that one of the pleas of the insurance company
    was that there was contributory negligence. Even the insurance
    company did not dispute the factum of accident and the factum of
    the death of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey. The only dispute is
658                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       about the involvement of the truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 on
       which the MACT found that there was adequate evidence to show its
       involvement in the accident. Thereafter, the MACT, after applying the
       appropriate multiplier, awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,41,289/-.
13. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court.
    The two grounds that were raised were about the denial of the
    involvement of the truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 and the fact
    that the deceased was about 58 years of age and that the multiplier
    of 9 ought to have been applied instead of 11. The High Court has,
    by a very summary order, allowed the appeal.
14. We have heard Mr. Girijesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants
    and Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the insurance company
    who have reiterated their respective contentions. We have perused
    the records and also the written submissions filed.
15. The only question that arises is, was the High Court justified in
    setting aside the order of the MACT. The High Court, in its cryptic
    order, has held as under:-
            “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
            through the record, few things needs elaboration. Praful
            Dubey, PW-1 has though said in para 3 of his deposition
            that his mother had lost her mental balance at the time
            of the incident and his sister Pooja and Priyanka were
            residing in their in-laws house and he was studying at
            Indore pursuing his B.E., but it has not come on record that
            when author of the FIR is the occupant of the car namely
            Narayan Das Tiwari who was traveling in the car bearing
            No. M.P. No. 19 CB 5879 and he had lodged report against
            unknown vehicle and there is evidence of the star witness
            Sanu Shukla that he had visited house of the deceased
            after 8-10 days of the incident when Chakradhar Dubey
            had passed away, then it is not evident that why number
            of the offending vehicle was not given to the other relative
            including PW-1. There is no explanation for this lacuna.
            It is true as submitted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha that
            Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence of
            any eye witness but the fact of the matter is that claimants
            were required to proof their own case. There is long delay
            of about ten months in pursuing the case. Date of accident
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        659

     Geeta Dubey & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.


          i.e. 18.06.2018 is not disputed, date of taking statements
          on 20.04.2019 is also not disputed. There is a long gap
          often months in between.
          Thus, when all these aspects are taken into consideration
          and also the fact that claimants never sought any
          investigation in regard to the CCTV footage or production of
          CCTV footage to prove the aspect of accident taking place
          from the vehicle which has been implicated in the present
          case i.e. truck bearing No. MP19-HA-1197, impugned
          award having being passed on misplaced sympathy and
          inappropriate appreciation of evidence available on record
          cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
          Accordingly, impugned award is set aside. Appeal is
          allowed and disposed of.”
16. We are surprised that in a First Appeal filed under Section 173 of
    the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court has made a short shrift
    of the matter and by a summary order reversed the detailed award
    passed by the MACT. An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
    Vehicles Act is in the nature of the First Appeal. In our considered
    view, the least that is expected is a careful marshalling of the oral
    and documentary evidence produced before the MACT. Except for a
    fleeting reference to the evidence of PW-2, there is no real discussion
    on the substance of his deposition. What is matter of concern is that
    there is no reference at all to Exh.P-1 final report, Exh.P-2 the First
    Information Report, Exh.P-16 the seizure memo of the vehicle after
    the issuance of Section 133 notice under the Motor Vehicles Act and
    also no discussion on the findings of the MACT.
17. It is well settled by several pronouncements of this Court that an
    appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is essentially in
    the nature of the first appeal like Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
    Code. It has been held by this Court that the High Court is under
    a legal obligation to decide all issues both on facts and law after
    appreciating the entire evidence. [See Sudarsan Puhan vs. Jayanta
    Ku. Mohanty and Others (2018) 10 SCC 552, Uttar Pradesh State
    Road Transport Corporation vs. Mamta and Others (2016) 4
    SCC 172 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar and
    Others (2000) 10 SCC 158]. This is a fortiori when the High Court
    proposes to reverse the well-reasoned award.
660                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


18. We were initially considering whether the matter should be remanded
    for fresh consideration by the High Court. However, since the incident
    is of the year 2018, and already 6 years had elapsed, we felt that any
    further delay will only compound the agony of the already devastated
    family. Hence, we have proceeded to analyse the facts ourselves.
19. Except for a bare assertion that the vehicle has been wrongly involved,
    the insurance company which has setup a plea of collusion has done
    nothing to make good its case. We find that the judgment of the
    High Court is wholly untenable. We say so for the following reasons.
20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is
    disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue,
    the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance
    of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See Sajeena
    Ikhbal and Others, V. Mini Babu George and Others (2024)
    SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it appropriate to extract the
    following paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi
    & Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009)
    13 SCC 530. Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the
    accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question, this Court
    held as follows:
          “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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        661

     Geeta Dubey & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.


          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.
          16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is
          based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the
          police might have implicated the respondents, no reason
          has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought
          on record has been referred to for the said purpose.”
21. Secondly, applying the test of preponderance of probability, we find
    that the claimants have established their case that it was the truck
    bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197 which was involved in the
    accident with car bearing no. MP-19-CB-5879 wherein the deceased
    was travelling. We say so for the following reasons:-
     a.   The accident occurred on 18.06.2018 and the FIR was lodged
          on 21.06.2018 clearly giving the date, time and the place where
          the accident happened. It was also mentioned that it was an
          unknown truck which came from behind in high speed and hit the
          car as at that point the claimants were unaware of the number
          of the truck. It referred to the injuries suffered by the deceased.
     b.   It is also beyond dispute that the husband of the claimant no. 1,
          the deceased Chakradhar Dubey was treated at Nagpur Arneja
          Institute of Cardiology Private Limited and he died on 28.06.2018.
     c.   The claimants have explained the delay by clearly stating that
          after the death, they took time to regroup themselves and set
          about investigating and collecting information about the accident.
     d.   No sooner they obtained information, the claimant no. 1
          submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police giving
          the list of persons including the name of PW-2 Sonu Shukla
          who had witnessed the accident.
     e.   Based on the application, the investigation which was originally
          closed was taken up again as per the order of S.D.O.P., Maihar
          and after recording the statements of witnesses, a charge-sheet
          was filed for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A, and
          the case is still pending against respondent no. 2- the driver.
     f.   It is also on record that after the application was given by
          claimant no. 1, a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles
662                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            Act was issued to the owner and the vehicle was seized under
            Exh.P-16 by the police. It has also come on record that the truck
            was thereafter given on supurdnama by the court to the owner.
       g.   Sonu Shukla was examined as PW-2 and he has clearly deposed
            that on 18.06.2018, when he was going from Sarlanagar to
            Maihar with his colleague Kapil Pandey when respondent
            no. 2, who was driving the truck bearing registration no. MP-19-
            HA-1197 in a rash and negligent manner, at around 08:15 PM
            hit the car bearing registration no. MP-19-CB-5879 in which the
            deceased was travelling. No doubt, the witness states that he
            gave the information to claimant no. 1. The witness also states
            that he had taken Chakradhar Dubey to Civil Hospital, Maihar
            and on the same day informed the claimant’s family about the
            incident. However, he states that he did not inform the police
            and went back home. The witness admits that his statement
            was recorded only on 20.04.2019. The witness, however, does
            not mention that he mentioned the truck number to the family
            when he conveyed the news of the accident. The witness was
            cross-examined but he stood by his statement. The witness
            also stated that on a specific question in cross that the front
            part of the vehicle bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197
            was of white colour and the body was of red colour and the
            vehicle was of 12 wheels. The witness also stated that the
            truck belonged to Sanjeev Kumar Vyasi and denied that the
            said owner was his relative.
       h.   The insurance company examined Op.W.-1 Raj Kumar
            Kachhwah who admitted that till the date of his deposition,
            no information or complaint was given to the senior police
            officers stating that an attempt is being made by the claimants
            and the owner and driver of the vehicle to wrongly include the
            vehicle bearing No. MP-19-HA-1197 in the case. The witness
            also admitted that no steps to cancel the investigation of the
            police has been taken and no enquiry has been done into the
            veracity of the claim.
       i.   The MACT, on appreciation of the overall conspectus, particularly
            impressed by the fact that the insurance company did not lodge
            any complaint of collusion and about the involvement of the
            truck in an illegal manner concluded that it was truck bearing
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       663

     Geeta Dubey & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.


          registration no. MP-19-HA-1197 which hit the car bearing no.
          MP-19-CB-5879 from behind.
22. Thirdly, the claimants having discharged the initial onus, if the
    insurance company had a case that there was collusion between the
    driver/owner of the truck and the claimants, it ought to discharge that
    burden. It is candidly admitted by the witness Raj Kumar Kachhwah
    that they had taken no steps in this regard.
23. As held in Sajeena Ikhbal (supra) and Bimla Devi (supra), we
    are convinced that on the principle of preponderance of probability,
    the claimants have established the involvement of vehicle bearing
    registration no. MP-19-HA-1197. The insurance company having
    set up a specific plea of collusion has not established the same. As
    was held in Bimla Devi (supra), here too, we feel that there was
    no reason for the police to falsely implicate the vehicle concerned in
    the matter and launch prosecution against the driver. If the insurance
    company had suspected collusion, they would have taken steps
    to file appropriate complaints including moving the higher police
    authorities or the court to order an investigation into the alleged
    wrongful involvement of the vehicle. There is no case for the insurance
    company that the police officer also colluded. The investigation by
    the police has resulted in charge-sheet being filed.
24. For all these reasons, we restore the findings of the MACT that
    death of the claimant no.1’s husband was caused by the driving of
    the truck bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197 by respondent
    no. 2-Ajay Kumar in a rash and negligent manner at about 08:15
    PM on 18.06.2018, in a place one kilometer ahead of Sonwari Toll
    Plaza at Maihar.
25. The only other point raised in the memo of appeal before the High
    Court by the insurance company is that the deceased was about 58
    years of age and that the multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied
    instead of 11. The High Court had no occasion to discuss the same
    as it allowed the insurance company’s appeal on the aspect of the
    vehicle not being involved in the accident. Before us also, no arguments
    were advanced on the issue of the wrong application of the multiplier.
    The MACT has relied on the age, as mentioned in the postmortem
    report, as 55 years and has applied the appropriate multiplier. The
    insurance company claims that the school certificate and the Aadhar
    Card reveal the date of birth of the deceased as 01.08.1960.
664                                                   [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


26. No evidence has been adduced by the insurance company to show
    that the age was 58 years. The claimants have clearly pleaded in
    the claim petition that the age of the deceased was 55 years and
    proved the same. Hence, we reject the contention of the insurance
    company on this score also.
27. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
    of the High Court dated 24.08.2023 in MA No. 68 of 2022 is quashed
    and set aside and the award passed by the MACT, Maihar, District
    Satna, Madhya Pradesh dated 25.03.2021 is restored. No order as
    to costs.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain