GEETA DUBEY & ORS. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 652, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[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