Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 47 (MP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rammurti

2026-02-09

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2026
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on IA No. 9070/2025. This is an application under section 5 r/w section 12 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2. It is submitted that since there was an issue in calculation of tax liability as per the old and new tax regimes, therefore, counsel for appellant, who was representing the case before the Claims Tribunal, was confident that he would be able to convice the Claims Tribunal and get the award rectified. Accordingly, appellant/Insurance Company preferred a review petition on 8.4.2024, which was dismissed on 11.2.2025. Accordingly, entire file was forwarded to the regional office of the company on 24.2.2025. Manager of the company, who was looking after the legal matters, had retired in February 2025, and dealing officer of the company had also retired in March 2025. Present Manager of the company joined in the month of April 2025. In the meanwhile, as the company had not received any recovery notice from the MACT, therefore, present matter escaped from the attention of present Manager, and only in the last week of October 2025, while scrutinizing the files for Lok Adalat, present matter came to the knowledge of present Manager, and accordingly, it is prayed that delay of 509 day s in filing this appeal be condoned. 3. Although application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents, but in view of the facts which shall be referred to in subsequent paragraphs, this Court is of considered opinion that the application is liable to be allowed. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9070/2025 is allowed, and delay of 509 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 5. This Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 12.3.2024 passed by 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Morena in MACC No. 62/2021, by which an award of Rs. 1,65,56,990/- has been passed in favor of respondents/claimants. 6. Challenging the quantum of award, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that respondents/claimants themselves had filed certain documents along with list of documents. Those documents were taken on record by the Claims Tribunal by order dated 25.4.2023. By referring to the list of documents, it is submitted that it is clear from said list of documents that claimants themselves had filed original copy of experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020. Those documents were taken on record by the Claims Tribunal by order dated 25.4.2023. By referring to the list of documents, it is submitted that it is clear from said list of documents that claimants themselves had filed original copy of experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020. However, it is fairly conceded that said document remained unexhibited. However, by referring to the evidence of Anshu Sharma (PW-1), it is submitted that in paragraph 9 of her cross-examination, this witness had admitted that on the date of accident, deceased was not in a job. It is further submitted that in view of the said admission, experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020 becomes crucial, and therefore, it is prayed that the matter be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for re-adjudication of notional income of the deceased. It is further submitted that in the list of documents, it was mentioned that experience and relieving certificate is being filed in original, but in the record of Claims Tribunal, original document is missing, and photocopy of the same is there, which indicates that somebody must have removed the original experience and relieving certificate from the record of Claims Tribunal. It is further submitted that even otherwise, it is clear from the Income Tax Return of deceased for the Financial Year 2019-20 (Exhibit P-35) that an amount of Rs. 3,10,920/- was paid by the deceased by way of income tax. The Claims Tribunal committed a material illegality by recalculating the income tax by applying the principles of new tax regime. 7. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents/claimants. 8. Heard learned counsel for parties. 9. From the record of Claims Tribunal, it is clear that on 27.2.2023, an application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC was filed along with documents mentioned in the list of documents. Said documents were taken on record by the Claims Tribunal by order dated 25.4.2023. Thus, it is clear that experience and relieving certificate, which was filed in original along with list of documents, was also taken by the Claims Tribunal on record. Although a specific question was put by appellant to Anshu Sharma (PW-1) that deceased was not in service on the date of accident which was admitted by her, but unfortunately, it appears that original experience and relieving certificate dated 15/03/2020 remained unexhibited. 10. Although a specific question was put by appellant to Anshu Sharma (PW-1) that deceased was not in service on the date of accident which was admitted by her, but unfortunately, it appears that original experience and relieving certificate dated 15/03/2020 remained unexhibited. 10. This Court has gone through the entire record of Claims Tribunal with the assistance of counsel for appellant as well as counsel for respondents/claimants. After going through the record of Claims Tribunal meticulously, it was fairly conceded by counsel for appellant as well as counsel for claimants that original experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020 is not on record, but the record contains photocopy of said certificate. Although counsel for claimants tried to convince this Court that the word "original" in the list of documents might be because of an inadvertent mistake made by counsel for claimants, but this Court is unable to accept the said contention because in the list of documents, it was specifically mentioned that experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020 is in original. As already pointed out, original experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020 is not on record. Who removed the said original certificate from the record of Claims Tribunal requires an enquiry because manipulation of record of the Court is a serious aspect which cannot be lost sight of by this Court, specifically when it was brought to the notice of this Court. 11. Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal has not considered the notional income of deceased, but it has taken the annual income of deceased which was disclosed by the previous employer of deceased in various Income Tax Certificate issued in Form 16 of 2018-19 and 2019-20. Once the deceased had already left the job, then whether aforesaid Income Tax Certificate issued in Form 16 could have been utilized by the Claims Tribunal for ascertaining the notional income of deceased or not has not been addressed by the Claims Tribunal. Furthermore, once the deceased had paid the income tax, then the same amount should have been taken into consideration for ascertaining the take-home salary of the deceased, and the Claims Tribunal should not have reassessed the Income Tax Return in the light of new tax regime. Furthermore, once the deceased had paid the income tax, then the same amount should have been taken into consideration for ascertaining the take-home salary of the deceased, and the Claims Tribunal should not have reassessed the Income Tax Return in the light of new tax regime. If the deceased had decided to file the Income Tax Return as per the provisions of old tax regime, then that discretion exercised by the deceased cannot be substituted by the Claims Tribunal by its own notions. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has committed a material illegality while calculating the notional income of the deceased. 13. Although Anshu Sharma (PW1) has admitted in paragraph 9 of his cross-examination that on the date of accident, his father/deceased was not in a job, but still with an intention to give further opportunity to the parties, matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the question of notional income of the deceased as per law. 14. The claimants/respondents are directed to produce the original copy of experience and relieving certificate dated 15/3/2020. If they are not in a position to produce the same, then they shall make a request to the Claims Tribunal to requisition the same from previous employer of the deceased. In case if original experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020 is not filed, then, in the light of admission made by Anshu Sharma in paragraph 9 of her cross-examination, it shall be presumed that deceased was not in service on the date of accident and the Claims Tribunal shall reassess the notional income of deceased by applying judicially acceptable reasons. 15. The Claims Tribunal is also directed to hold an inquiry and give a specific finding as to whether original experience and relieving certificate dated 15.3.2020 was actually filed before the Claims Tribunal or not, and if yes, then who appears to have removed the said document from the record of Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal is directed to take up this issue seriously because any interpolation in the record of Claims Tribunal is a serious matter, and it also warrants prosecution of the person who is guilty of removing the original documents from the record of Claims Tribunal. Document from the record of Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal is directed to take up this issue seriously because any interpolation in the record of Claims Tribunal is a serious matter, and it also warrants prosecution of the person who is guilty of removing the original documents from the record of Claims Tribunal. Document from the record of Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal is directed to take up this issue seriously because any interpolation in the record of Claims Tribunal is a serious matter, and it also warrants prosecution of the person who is guilty of removing the original documents from the record of Claims Tribunal. 16. It was further submitted by counsel for appellant that insurance company has been wrongly held to be jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation amount. It is submitted that FIR was lodged on 20.8.2020, whereas accident took place on 13.7.2020 and in the merg report (Exhibit P-15), Dinesh had not disclosed the number of offending vehicle. 17. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellant. 18. It is well-established principle of law that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to discard the claim of claimant. In the present case, merg information (Exhibit P-15) was given by Dinesh, who himself has disclosed in information that he reached on the spot after getting information and found that deceased Pawan and his son Sumit were lying on the road in injured condition and Pawan has expired. When Pawan had expired and his son Sumit is in injured condition, then it was not expected from Anshu Sharma (PW-1), who is a girl aged about 22 years, to rush to police station to lodge the FIR. Her first priority was treatment of her father and brother. 19. Under these circumstances, since it is a settled principle of law that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to discard the evidence and claim petitions are to be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties and in absence of any circumstance to indicate that offending vehicle was falsely implicated in order to gain an undue advantage, this Court is of considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal did not commit any mistake by holding that accident was caused by offending vehicle. 20. No other argument is advanced by counsel for appellant. 21. 20. No other argument is advanced by counsel for appellant. 21. For the reasons mentioned above, quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to adjudicate the quantum of compensation in the light of observations made by this Court. No other grounds shall be allowed to be raised by any of the parties. 22. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 22.4.2026 and no new notice will be required to be given to any of the contesting parties. 23. With aforesaid observations, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed of.