Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 291 (MP)

Gyan Singh Ahirwar v. Genda Bai

2025-04-30

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2025
ORDER 1. This miscellaneous appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed against the Award dated 11.9.2024 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in MACC No. 123 of 2023, by which an amount of Rs. 7,21,569/- has been awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle. 3. A solitary ground was raised by counsel for appellants that no witness was examined by claimants to prove the factum of accident. The appellants have denied the factum of accident. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal committed material illegality by holding that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle in question and wrongly awarded the compensation. 4. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for the claimants. It is submitted that once police, after concluding the investigation, has filed the charge sheet, therefore it is to be presumed that the incident was caused by the offending motorcycle Splendor bearing registration number MP40-BA-2914. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Claimants filed a claim petition by pleading inter alia that on 30.4.2023 at about 9:00 p.m., deceased Halke Singh Dhakad was returning from Chouksey Nagar after completing his duties. The driver of motorcycle bearing registration number MP-40-BA-2914, by driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased from behind. As a result, he sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Vidisha Hospital from where he was referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. He remained under treatment from 15.2023 to 6.5.2023 and ultimately expired. 7. The claimants examined Dharu Singh Dhaakad (PW-1) in support of their claim, whereas respondents examined Gyan Singh (DW-1) and Laxman Singh Baghel (DW-2). The Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition primarily relying upon the charge sheet filed by the police and also held that for deciding a claim case, strict proof of evidence is not required. 8. Dharu Singh Dhakad (PW-1) was not an eye-witness. In crossexamination, he specifically admitted that at the time of accident he was in Chouksey Nagar and somebody had informed his younger brother Dharmendra on phone that an accident has taken place. Dharmendra, in his turn, informed this witness and thereafter he rushed to the spot. He found that his father was lying on the road. In crossexamination, he specifically admitted that at the time of accident he was in Chouksey Nagar and somebody had informed his younger brother Dharmendra on phone that an accident has taken place. Dharmendra, in his turn, informed this witness and thereafter he rushed to the spot. He found that his father was lying on the road. Blood was oozing out from the rear part of his head and his ribs were broken and contusions were found on his shoulder and knees. His father was not in a position to speak anything. Thereafter he and his brother Dharmendra shifted his father to the hospital. Since his father was not getting proper treatment in Hamidia Hospital, therefore he shifted his father to a private hospital. He specifically admitted in paragraph 7 of his crossexamination that he had not seen the accident. He further admitted that number of the offending motorcycle was disclosed to him by his brother and it was not known to him. He further claimed that apart from the facts mentioned in paragraphs 5 to 7, he does not know anything. 9. Thus, it is clear that Dharu Singh Dhakad (PW-1), who was the only witness examined by the claimants, was not an eye-witness. Although it is claimed that the number of offending motorcycle was disclosed by Dharmendra, but Dharmendra has not been examined. Be that whatever it may be. 10. Gyan Singh (DW-1) has deposed that on 5.5.2023, he received a phone call from the police and was instructed that he should come to the police station along with the vehicle. Accordingly, he went to the police station along with the vehicle, where his vehicle was seized and he was made to sign some blank papers. He further pleaded that on 30.4.2023, he was in his village Kherkhedi and the motorcycle was also in his house and no accident had taken place. In his cross-examination, he denied the factum of accident by his motorcycle. 11. Laxman Singh Baghel (DW2), who is appellant No. 2 and was alleged to be the owner of motorcycle, has specifically claimed that no accident had taken place and he has been falsely implicated by the claimants with the solitary intention to get the compensation amount. 12. Thus, the factum of accident was specifically denied by the owner and driver of the motorcycle. 13. 12. Thus, the factum of accident was specifically denied by the owner and driver of the motorcycle. 13. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the claim petition can be allowed on the basis of the fact that charge sheet has been filed by the police. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Meerabai and Others v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, decided today itself in SLP No. 3886 of 2019, has held that whether the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently or not can be decided on the basis of charge sheet and FIR lodged by the police, and the claim case can be allowed even in absence of any eye-witness. 15. In the case of Meerabai (supra), the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle which was being driven by the owner and driver of the motorcycle. The owner and driver of the motorcycle did not appear in the witness box to depose that the accident did not occur due to his fault. In that case, the factum of accident by the said motorcycle was not in dispute. Since the owner/driver of the motorcycle did not enter the witness box to claim that he was not driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently, the Supreme Court relied upon the FIR and charge sheet filed by the police, to hold negligence. 16. In the present case, no eye-witness has been examined. The owner and driver of the motorcycle have not only denied the factum of accident by filing written statement in the claim petition, but had also entered in the witness box and specifically claimed that no accident had taken place. It is true that the claim cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability and strict proof of evidence is not required, but it is equally true that the documents of criminal case cannot be utilised for disbelieving the evidence led in claim case. Furthermore, the charge sheet filed by police is merely an opinion formed by Investigating Officer. Preponderance of probability does not mean that there should be no evidence at all. Furthermore, the charge sheet filed by police is merely an opinion formed by Investigating Officer. Preponderance of probability does not mean that there should be no evidence at all. In the present case, admittedly no eyewitness was examined and the owner as well as driver of offending motorcycle had not only denied the factum of accident, but also entered in the witness box and deposed that no accident had taken place. 17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed material illegality by allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants. 18. Accordingly, the Award dated 11.9.2024 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in MACC No. 123 of 2023, is hereby set aside and the claim petition filed by the claimants is hereby dismissed. 19. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.