Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Tiwari vs Prema Babu on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12320
1 MA-1552-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1552 of 2011
MANOJ TIWARI
Versus
PREMA BABU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P.Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar - Advocate for respondent No.3/company.
JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A.No.4682/2022, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
for taking documents on record which is in the form of award passed in Claim
case No.58/2009 vide order dated 31.07.2009 by Third Additional Judge, to the
First Additional MACT, Gwalior.
2. Though the application is orally opposed by the counsel for the
respondent but having regard to the certified copy of the award passed by MACT,
Gwalior and that there is no issue raised as to the genuineness of the document,
I.A.No.4682/2022 is allowed and documents are taken on record.
3. Present miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle
Act is filed against the award dated 29.07.2011 passed by IInd Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.43/2008.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal
has given erroneous finding on issue No.1. It is clearly pleaded and deposed by
appellant respectively in his application and statement that he was riding on
motorcycle with deceased Dilip and suddenly, a truck bearing registration No.UP
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12320
2 MA-1552-2011
75/H-8045 came rashly and negligently and dashed him. Therefore, Dilip
scummed and he sustained grievous injuries. In para No.6 of cross examination,
Manoj Tiwari (AW/1) has clarified that the motorcycle was being ridden by
deceased Dilip. He denied that the motorcycle was being ridden rashly and
negligently.
5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the award in
claim case No.58/2009 passed by Third Additional Judge, to the First Additional
MACT, Gwalior on 31.07.2009 which was filed by LR's of deceased Dilip and it
is found by the Tribunal that the accident was caused by driver of truck bearing
Registration No.UP 75/H-8045 and he drove the truck rashly and negligently and
dashed the motorcycle on which deceased Dilip and Manoj were riding. Manoj
has been examined in that claim case as AW/1 and he has categorically stated in
his statement in that claim case that the motorcycle was being ridden by deceased
himself and they are going very carefully.
6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned
Tribunal has on conjunctures and surmises drawn a conclusion that Manoj (AW/1)
has deposed against the averments and therefore, it is found doubtful that the
driver of offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The
conclusion of learned Tribunal on the basis of the location of vehicle is also
hypothetical as it is clarified by the witness Manoj (AW/1) that the driver of the
offending vehicle was driving the truck rashly and negligently and there is no
evidence in rebuttal on record. Manoj Tiwari (AW/1) remained intact in the cross-
examination and therefore, it is categorical that the incident was caused due to
rash and negligent driving by the driver/respondent No.1 Prembabu of offending
vehicle truck bearing registration No.UP 75/H-8045. Therefore, the conclusion on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12320
3 MA-1552-2011
issue No.1 is erroneous, perverse and liable to be set aside. Since, the learned
Tribunal has not given any conclusion qua other issues and not calculated the
compensation amount, therefore, after setting aside the conclusion on issue No.1
and 5 as well as the award passed by learned Tribunal, the case may be remanded
back to learned Tribunal to pass award on all issues as per law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/company has
opposed the prayer on the ground that learned Tribunal has considered the
evidence on record and after proper appreciation has given the conclusion qua
issue No.1 and 5, therefore, there is no ground to set aside the award.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, it is found that the appellant, Manoj Tiwari (AW/1), has categorically
stated in his testimony that the deceased Dilip, was riding the motorcycle
carefully. He was the pillion rider, and the motorcycle was being ridden by the
deceased, Dilip. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle. He also clearly described the entire situation of the accident
in both his examination-in-chief and cross-examination. His testimony remained
intact during cross-examination, and there is no rebuttal of it on record
challenging his version. No evidence has been adduced by the appellant and other
respondents No.1 and 2; therefore, the unchallenged testimony of Manoj Tiwari
(AW/1) cannot be disbelieved.
9. As far as the contradictions in the statement of Manoj Tiwari (AW/1) are
concerned, the observations made by the learned Tribunal appear to be based on
conjecture, surmise, and hypothetical reasoning. There is no material variation in
the statement of this witness. Rather, his statement is corroborated by
documentary evidence such as the FIR (Ex.P/1) and other documents prepared by
the police during the course of the investigation. After investigation, the police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12320
4 MA-1552-2011
found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. Consequently, a charge sheet under Sections 304, 279, 337, and
338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was filed before the concerned criminal court
against the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No.1 - Prem Babu, and a
criminal case is also pending against him.
10. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Sanjay Kumar and
other Vol II (2011) ACC 75, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held
that when driver of the offending vehicle is facing criminal trial, prima facie it can
be presumed that he was responsible for the accident.
11. In the case of Rajendra Singh vs. Sheetal Das , 1992 (1) M.P.W.N. 104,
the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that if the driver of the offending
vehicle is not examined on behalf of the non-applicants, a presumption may be
drawn against him that he was driving the offending vehicle rashly and
negligently.
12. In the case of Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation,
AIR 2009 SC 2819 it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that in claim cases no cogent
evidence is expected to be produced by the appellants. The claims cases are to be
decided of the principle of preponderance of probability. Principle of beyond
reasonable doubt is not applicable in such cases.
13. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid case and having
regard to the testimony of Manoj Tiwari (AW/1), the documents exhibited and
proved on behalf of the appellant, it is clearly established that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal on issues No.1
and 5 are liable to be set aside. Learned Tribunal has not recorded any findings on
issues except issue No.1 and issue No. 5. The learned Tribunal did not assess the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12320
5 MA-1552-2011
compensation amount in this case. It was incumbent on the learned Tribunal to
decide all the issues framed in the matter. However, the learned Tribunal failed to
record any findings on issues No.2, 3, and 4, and did not assess the compensation
despite the evidence adduced by the parties. Furthermore, the conclusions
recorded by the Tribunal on issues No.1 and 5 are not sustainable in light of the
unrebutted testimony of AW/1 - Manoj Tiwari and supporting documentary
evidence.
14. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Tribunal on issues No.1 and 5
in the impugned award are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned
Tribunal with a direction to decide all the issues afresh and assess the
compensation in accordance with law, based on the evidence available on record.
15. In view of the aforesaid terms, the appeal is disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Monika
