Kamal Singh vs Hasan Kha on 12 February, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4557

1 MA-3312-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 3312 of 2017
KAMAL SINGH
Versus
HASAN KHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Lokesh Mehta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Saiyad Ashif Ali Warsi - Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & 2.
Shri Vivek Nagar - Advocate for the respondent No. 3.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 3316 of 2017
DILIP SINGH
Versus
HASAN KHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Lokesh Mehta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Saiyad Ashif Ali Warsi - Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & 2.

Shri Vivek Nagar - Advocate for the respondent No. 3.

ORDER

These appeals have been preferred against the impugned award dated 11.09.2017 in Claim Case No. 11/2016 (Kamalsingh vs. Hasan Khan & Ors.) and Claim Case No. 12/2016 (Dilip Singh vs. Hasan Khan & Ors.) whereby claim petitions filed on behalf of the claimant/injured persons have been dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4557

2 MA-3312-2017

02. Claimants case is that on 19.09.2014 they were going from Village Makhawad to their village Patouli riding on motorcycle. Dilip singh was driving the motorcycle and Kamal Singh was sitting as pilion. Motorcycle was driven diligently in their side. As soon as motorcycle was stopped nearby pond, at that time a tractor driven by its driver coming from wrong side dashed the motorcycle wherein claimants Dilip Singh and Kamal Singh suffered grievous injuries. Incident was reported to Police Station Akodiya, Dist. Shajapur and charge-sheet was filed against respondent No. 1 Hasan Khan, driver of the tractor under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter claim cases were filed claiming an amount of Rs.20 lacs per each injured as compensation. Claim petitions were opposed by

respondents. Necessary issues were framed and after affording opportunity of hearing, these claim petitions have been dismissed by the impugned award which has given rise to these Misc. Appeals.

03. Learned counsel for the claimants has contended before the Court that FIR was registered belatedly as both the claimants were critically injured and information from the concerned hospital (Annexure P/7) was submitted to the Police Station - Akodiya and thereafter due enquiry was conducted and FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered on 23.09.2014 which is apparent from Annexure P/1 itself. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet (Ex.P/2) was filed before J.M.F.C. Shajapur. Driver of the Tractor No. M.P. 42 AA 7565 which was vehicle causing accident. The driver was put to trial in Criminal Case No. 2608/2014 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur wherein he was read over the substance of allegations under Sections 279, 337, 338 of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4557

3 MA-3312-2017 IPC and he admitted the charges, therefore, vide judgment dated 05.01.2015 (Ex.P/10), he was convicted and sentenced till rising the sentence with fine of Rs.2000/- on each count. Learned counsel further submits that witness Antarsingh listed in the charge-sheet has been examined by the claimants as witness PW-4. In examination-in-chief he has supported claimants case, therefore, findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that causing of acccident by the aforesaid tractor driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 1 is not proved, is perverse and dismissal of the claim petitions on the sole ground cannot be sustained. Therefore, he prays for allowing both the petitions by setting aside the impugned award and remanding these claim petitions for passing of appropriate award computing the award amount before the learned trial Court. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance by Apex Court in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 693.

04. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/insurnace company supporting the impugned awards and by relying upon the judgments of Ravi vs. Govindappa 2014 ACC 907 Karnataka, P. Varalaxmi vs. Karnataka MRDC 2003 ACJ 1952 DB, Durga Prasad vs. Suvrati & Ors. 2004 ACJ 1046, Dharamvir Singh vs. Raghuvar & Ors. 1998 ACJ 1292, Surendra Kumar Arora and Ors. vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla & Ors. AIR 2012 ACJ 1305, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalawati & Ors. 2014 ACJ 2772, Karamchand Yogi & Ors. vs. Kishan Singh & Anr. (M.A. No. 1034/2005 decided by High Court of M.P. on 13.07.2007), Rohit Kumar vs. Tarachand Saini & Ors. MACD 2011(2) (Raj.) 1108, Shivshanker Mishra vs. Ramji &

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4557

4 MA-3312-2017 Ors. 2013(4) T.A.C. 944 (M.P.), Lalit Chouhan vs. Shakeel Mohd. & Ors. IV (2006) ACC 733 (DB) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Dubey & Ors. (Misc. Appeal No. 68/2022) submits that this is a case of false involvement of the vehicle. FIR was filed belatedly on 23.09.2017 after 4 days of the alleged incident. He further submtis that Antarsingh roped in as eyewitness in cross-examinaation has failed to support the prosecution case, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in not believing on the testimony of the aforesaid witness. Learned counsel further submits taht mere admission of the charges by respondent No. 1 does not prove the case of the claimants and they cannot derive any benefit out of that judgments which has been passed on admission. For which he has placed reliance on para 9 of Ravi vs. Govindappa (supra) . Learned counsel has also placed reliance on other aforesaid judgments to buttress his submissions that criminal Courts findings are not binding on the Claims Tribunal where negligence of the driver has not been proved then claim cannot be awarded by fastening liability upon the owners and drivers or ultimately on the insurance company. On these submissions, he prays for dismissal of both these appeals as they are devoid of any substance.

Heard and considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

05. It is not res integra that claim cases are decided on preponderance of probabilities and strict standard of proof of beyond or reasonable doubt as followed in criminal cases is not applicable. Even strict rules of evidence are also not applicable. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4557

5 MA-3312-2017 State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2019 SC 994 has held to that effect. Even the witnesses not named in the criminal cases can be examined to prove the claim case. Division Bench of Chhatisgarh High Court in case of Dhananjay Prasad Suryavanshi vs. Rajendra Sharma & Ors. 2006 ACJ 2829 (Chhatisgarh) has held that confession of motorcyclists in criminal trial that he was driven the motorcycle rashly and negligently and on that basis he was convicted and fined, his admission in terms of Section 18 of Evidence Act which was relevant as against the motorcyclist under Section 21. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that Tribunal ought to have concluded that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. In the instant case, admittedly, both the appellants were critically injured and, therefore, it cannot be expected of them to get FIR lodged immediately. Information about the accident was given by the concerned hospital where the appellants were under treatment to the concerned police station and after due enquiry, the FIR was lodged and investigation ensued wherein it was found that the offending tractor as mentioned herein above was driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he was arraigned as accused and he ultimately admitted his guilt, therefore, registration of FIR belatedly cannot be attributed to the appellants. If Insurance Company was having any doubnt with regard to involvement of false implication of offending vehcile in the instant case, it could have got done by his own investigation and could have also summoned the investigating officer to rebut claimants case, but that has not been done. In case of Division Bench of this Court in Manoj vs. Samundar Singh & Ors. 2005 ACJ 520 wherein it

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4557

6 MA-3312-2017 has held that when the eyewitnesses have proved the accident and the driver admitted that there was accident when he was driving the offending vehicle jeep and injured sustained injuries, dismissal of the claim petition by the Claims Tribunal was reversed.

06. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petitions merely on the ground that FIR is delayed and claim case has not been proved and has also not computed the just and proper compensation, therefore, this Court is constrained to allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned award and remanding back the claim cases to the concerned Claims Tribunal for deciding the claim cases afresh in accordance with the law without being prejudiced by its own earlier findings recorded in the awards and will also assess the just and proper compensation.

0 7 . Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed and disposed off to the extent herein above indicated. Record of the Court below be remitted back forthwith along with copy of the order passed by this Court. Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected case also.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

soumya