Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajasthan State Transport Corp., Bara vs Naval Singh And Ors. on 27 October, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
1 MA-585-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 186 of 2005
NAVAL SINGH AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
RADHESHYAM AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.S.Rajput- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 585 of 2005
RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORP., BARA
Versus
NAVAL SINGH AND ORS.
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Rajput- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sunil Jain- Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9.
Shri R.P. Gupta- Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
MA No. 585 of 2005 under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
has been preferred by Rajasthan State Transport Corporation challenging the
impugned Award dated 15/10/2004 passed by Second Additional Member Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) [hereinafter it would be referred to as
'' the Claims Tribunal''] in Claim Case No.65/2004 for exonerating him liability
to pay the compensation to the claimants where as MA No.186/2005 under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
2 MA-585-2005
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by
appellants/Claimants challenging the common impugned award dated 15/10/2004
passed by Second Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri
[hereinafter it would be referred to as '' the Claims Tribunal''] in Claim Case
No.65/2004 on account of inadequacy of compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.
2. Since facts of both miscellaneous appeals are same and they are arising
out of common award passed by the Claims Tribunal, they are heard together and
disposed of by this common order.
3. As per findings of the Claims Tribunal in the case of death of Devendra
Singh, an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,51,000/- has been awarded
by the Claims Tribunal with interest from filing of claim petition till its
realization.
4. Brief facts of the case is that claimants/appellants filed MA No.
186/2005 alleging that deceased- Devendra Singh died due to grievous injuries
because of rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. RJ 28/T-
0338 by respondent No.1 on 22/09/2003. It is also submitted that aforesaid
vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 (appellant in M.A. No. 585/2005) on the
relevant date. It is contended that deceased-Devendra Singh was coming from
Shivpuri to Kolras via motorcycle, offending vehicle dashed the motorcycle of
deceased-Devendra Singh which was being driven rashly and negligently by
respondent No.1. Due to the accident, deceased-Devendra Singh sustained
serious injuries in whole body and as a result of which he died on the spot.
Thereafter, appellants filed a claim case before the Claims Tribunal seeking
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
3 MA-585-2005
compensation against the respondents. Respondents filed their written statement
and denied the accident.
5. Tribunal framed the issues and after recording evidence of both the
parties granted compensation in favour of claimants/appellants in Claim Case
No.186/2005.
6. In M.A. No. 186/2005, counsel for appellants submitted that Claims
Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation amount. It is submitted that
award passed by the Claims Tribunal is without any basis and is against the
principles established by law. It is further submitted that Tribunal assessed
income of the deceased in lower side and not granted compensation under the
head of future prospect, loss of estate and funeral expenses, therefore, he is
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. In MA No. 585/2005, counsel for appellant submitted that Claims
Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned Award in favour of
claimants. It is submitted that deceased- Devendra Singh was not dashed by bus,
as deceased fell down by slipping on his motorcycle and falsely implicated the
impugned vehicle for seeking compensation. It is submitted that he examined
driver -Radheshayam of the offending vehicle who stated that deceased slipped
from the motorcycle and thereafter collided with bus from back side. Hence, it is
prayed that he be exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the claimants.
8. Both the parties opposed the appeal filed by each other and prayed for
rejection of each other appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
4 MA-585-2005
10. In M.A. No. 585/2005, counsel for appellant argued that claimants are
unable to adduce any eye witness in regard to accident and it is submitted that it
is duty of claimants to produce eye witnesses to prove the accident but claimants
are unable to produce eye witnesses. Therefore, they are not entitled to get
compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the case passed by Coordinate Bench in the case
of Shanti Bai Vs Charanjeet Singh and others 2006 (1) ACCD 348 (MP ), wherein
coordinate Bench held that eye witness of the accident was not examined then
findings of the Tribunal that accident was not proved, was justified.
11. From perusal of the record, it is found that FIR was lodged on
22/09/2003 wherein it is mentioned that driver of offending bus bearing
registration No. RJ 28/T-0338 driving bus rashly and negligently hit the
motorcycle of deceased-Devendra Singh due to which Devendra Singh fell down
and bus passed over the body of the deceased. After lodging FIR (Ex.P-2), police
investigated the matter and thereafter filed the charge sheet against driver of the
offending vehicle. Father of deceased-Devendra Singh examined himself before
the Claims Tribunal but he is not eye witness of the accident.
12. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that due to lack of eye witness ,
the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the driver of the vehicle was rash
and negligent in driving the vehicle due to which the accident had occurred. So,
now the question arises for consideration in the present case is whether the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to the facts of the present case or not so
as to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased died due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle in question.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
5 MA-585-2005
13. In the case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi vs. Ranjit Ginning and
Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1735 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as under:
"The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence
but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the
plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but
is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the
plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened
to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship
is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa
loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that
the accident "speaks for itself" or tells its own story. There are
cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient
for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will
then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened
due to some other cause than his own negligence. Salmond on the
Law of Torts (15th Ed.) at p. 306 states : "The maxim res ipsa
loquitur applies whenever it is so improbable that such an accident
would have happened without the negligence of the defendant that
a reasonable jury could find without further evidence that it was so
caused". In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed., Vol. 28, at page
77, the position is stated thus : "An exception to the general rule is
that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is in the first
instance on the plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already
established are such that the proper and natural inference arising
from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the
defendant's negligence, or where the event charged as negligence
'tells its own story' of negligence on the part of the defendant, the
story so told being clear and unambiguous". Where the maxim is
applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact
he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably
have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on
his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that
the car was under the management of the defendant and that the
accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if
those who had the management used proper care."
14. In the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kamalakshy
Amma reported in 1987 ACJ 251 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
as under:-
"The maxim res ipsa loquitur is a principle which aids the court in
deciding as to the stage at which the onus shifts from one side to
the other. Section 114 of the Evidence Act gives a wide discretion
to the courts to draw presumptions of fact based on different
situations and circumstances. This is in a way, recognition of the
principle embodied in the maxim res ipsa loquitur. The leading
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
6 MA-585-2005
case on the subject is Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks
Co. (1865) 3 H & C 596. Erle C.J. in the said case has stated that,
"where the thing is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of explanation by the 8 of 18 defendants, that the accident
arose from want of care''. Evershad M. R. in Moore v. R. Fox &
Sons (1956) 1 OB 596 affirmed and followed the principle laid
down in Scott's case. Winfield in his famous treatise on Tort, after
referring to the decisions which founded the above doctrine, has
mentioned the two requirements to attract the above principle.
They are, (i) that the "thing" causing the damage be under the
control of the defendant or his servants and (ii) that the accident
must be such as would not in the ordinary course of things have
happened without negligence. This principle which was often
found to be a helping guide in the evaluation of evidence in
English decisions has been recognised in India also. The Supreme
Court in Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka,AIR 1979 SC 1848 has
discussed the applicability of the maxim res ipsa loquitur in civil
as also criminal cases, in the light of the provisions of the
Evidence Act."
15. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gita Bindal reported
in 2013 (8) R.C.R. (Civil) 245 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has summarised
the legal position as to applicability of the principle of res ipsa loquitur as
under:-
i. Res ipsa loquitur means that the accident speaks for itself. In
such cases, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident
and nothing more.
ii. Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the
absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose
from want of care.
iii. There are two requirements to attract res ipsa loquitur, (i)
that the "thing" causing the damage be under the control of the
defendant and (ii) that the accident must be such as would not in
the ordinary course of things have happened without negligence.
iv. Res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the normal rule that mere
happening of an accident is no evidence of negligence on the part
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
7 MA-585-2005
of the driver. This maxim means the mere proof of accident raises
the presumption of negligence unless rebutted by the wrongdoer. 9
of 18 v. In some cases considerable hardship is caused to the
plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him, but
is
solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the
plaintiff can prove the accident, but cannot prove how it happened
to establish negligence. This hardship is to be avoided by applying
the principle of res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for
itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident
speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the
accident and nothing more.
vi. The effect of doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' is to shift the onus to
the defendant in the sense that the doctrine continues to operate
unless the defendant calls credible evidence which explains how
the accident or mishap may have occurred without negligence, and
it seems that the operation of the rule is not displaced merely by
expert evidence showing, theoretically, possible ways in which the
accident might have happened without the defendant's negligence.
The doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur', therefore, plays a very
significant role in the law of tort and it is not the relic of the past,
but the living force of the day in determining the tortuous
liability.
vii. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice
which would result if a plaintiff were invariably compelled to
prove the precise cause of the accident and the defendant
responsible for it, even when the facts bearing in the matter are at
the outset unknown to him and often within the knowledge of the
defendant.
16. In the present case, it is established that deceased-Devendra Singh died
in the accident. Police registered FIR against driver of the offending vehicle and
thereafter filed charged sheet against driver of the offending vehicle. Driver-
Radheshayam of the offending vehicle accepted in his cross examination before
the Tribunal that criminal case was pending against him in Kolaras Court, District
Shivpuri and he partly accepted in chief examination that motorcycle was dashed
with bus and he stated that deceased-Devendra Singh fell down due to slipping of
motorcycle and he did not dash motorcycle. But driver of the offending vehicle-
Radheshayam did not file any complaint against Police Officer who registered the
case against him and also not filed any complaint to higher police Officer in this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
8 MA-585-2005
regard. Driver of the offending vehicle did not rebut the criminal documents,
therefore, driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted by the police and filed
charge sheet against him.
17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that
Claims Tribunal rightly held guilty of driver of the offending vehicle and Tribunal
has also not committed any error in holding that driver of the offending vehicle is
liable in the accident and it is not a case of false implication.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no substance in the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant in MA No.585/2005 . Thus,
the appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation fails and is hereby
dismissed
19. Now in M.A.No.186/2005, learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that they have filed this appeal for seeking enhancement of
compensation. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed an
error in assessing the income of deceased. In the light of the judgment passed
by Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur
and others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131 parents (father and mother) and wife of the
deceased are entitled to get consortium.
20. It is further submitted by counsel for the claimants that Claims
Tribunal has committed error in not giving any compensation under the head of
loss of estate, future prospect and funeral expenses. Therefore, the reasonable
amount of compensation be awarded by adding reasonable proper future prospect,
loss of estate and other heads etc. Hence, prayed for enhancement of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
9 MA-585-2005
compensation.
21. On the other hand, learned counsel for Rajasthan StateTransport
Corporation supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of
appeal .
22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
23. From perusal of record, it is found that accident occurred on
22/09/2003 and Tribunal has rightly assessed income of deceased i.e. 4000/-
per month but Tribunal did not grant compensation under the head of
consortium and future prospect.
24. In the light of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur
(Supra) parents of deceased and wife are entitled to get compensation under the
head of consortium.
25. Considering all documents filed by the claimants and evaluating
evidence available on record in respect of income and and looking to the age
of the deceased, 40 percent towards future prospect ought to have applied by the
Claims Tribunal in the light of decision of Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 ACJ 2700 ,
therefore, claimants are entitled for future prospect at the rate of
40%. Accordingly, claimants are entitled to get following compensation
amount as under:-
Heads Amount
Monthly income 4000/-PM
Total Income 4000 X 12 =48,000 PA
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
10 MA-585-2005
Future prospects 19,200(40%)
Income+Future prospects (48,000 + 19,200 = 67,200)
Dependency 2/3th 44,800/-
Multiplier (18) 44,800X18 =8,06,400/-
Other Heads (Funeral and loss
30,000/-
of estate)
Loss of consortium (Parents and wife) 40000 X 3 = 1,20,000/-
Total Rs.9,56,400/-
26. Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation in the instant
case is Rs.9,56,400/- as against the Award of the Claims Tribunal of
Rs.5,51,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an
additional sum of Rs.4,05,400/- over and above the amount, which has been
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
27. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, by
enhancing the compensation amount by a sum of Rs.4,05,400/-. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal
from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The said amount
be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal
shall remain intact.
28. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the
valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall
be deposited by the appellants- claimants within a period of one month and
proof thereof, shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, the Registry
shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26977
11 MA-585-2005
29. In view of above, miscellaneous appeal (M.A.No.186/2005) filed by
the claimants stands partly allowed and appeal (MA No. 585/2005) is hereby
dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the file of connected M.A.No.585/2005
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Prachi
