Mohd.Navsar @ Naushad vs Sonelal & Ors on 19 February, 2026

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14333

1 MA-3075-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 3075 of 2004
MATHURA PRASAD TIWARI
Versus
SONELAL & ORS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

Service of notice on respondent No.1 is dispense with.

None for the respondent No.2, though duly served.

Shri Rakesh Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 3076 of 2004
MOHD.NAVSAR @ NAUSHAD
Versus
SONELAL & ORS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

Service of notice on respondent No.1 is dispense with.

None for the respondent No.2, though duly served.

Shri Rakesh Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heard on: 11.02.2026

Pronounced on: 19.02.2026

ORDER

Both these appeals have arisen out of two awards passed on same date

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14333

2 MA-3075-2004

i.e. 11.08.2004 by Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Katni deciding MACC Nos. 28/2004 and 27/2004 respectively. Since both the claim cases had arisen out of same accident, therefore, both these appeals are being decided under common order.

2. Facts in brief are that Mathura Prasad Tiwari and Mohd. Navsar @ Naushad were travelling in offending truck in the capacity of labour, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. Both the appellants-claimants suffered grievous injury and permanent disability when the offending truck turned turtled. Hence, aforesaid two claim petitions seeking compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- in each petition were filed, but Tribunal dismissed both of them.

3. Assailing the impugned awards, appellants have filed these appeals submitting that the learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the claim petitions; it failed to properly appreciate the evidence and other material available on record; it failed to consider that there was a grievous injury resulting into permanent disability to both the appellants. Accordingly, a request has been made in both the appeals to allow them and also allow the claim petitions by awarding compensation as prayed for in the claim petitions.

4. Both the appeals have been opposed by counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, while respondent No.2 remained absent despite service of notice and respondent No.1 was not served with notice.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have been heard and record of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14333

3 MA-3075-2004 the Claims Tribunal has been examined.

6. In both the claim petitions, documents of criminal case relating to Crime No. 11/2003 registered in Police Station Kymore, district Katni were relied on by the appellants-claimants.

7. The impugned awards reveal that the claim petitions of both the appellants were dismissed by holding that they were not travelling in the offending truck and did not sustain any injuries in the alleged accident. For arriving at this finding, the Tribunal relied upon the FIR, marked as Ex.P-2. This FIR was registered on the information given by the truck driver Dhaniram. Incidentally, the FIR was lodged on the date of accident itself i.e. 15.01.2003. For dismissing the claim petitions, the Tribunal was impressed by the fact that FIR was conspicuously silent about the presence of appellants-claimants in the offending truck as travelers and also on any injuries caused to any of them. In other words, FIR (Ex.P-2) was not supporting the claim of appellants-claimants on the fact of sustaining injuries in the alleged accident.

8. Dhaniram, the first informant, would have been a very significant witness to prove that in the alleged accident, reported by him under FIR of Ex.P-2, the appellants-claimants also got injured besides the informant. However, this important witness was never summoned by appellants-claimants to support their narrative nor any other eyewitness was examined on their behalf.

9. Admittedly, appellants-claimants were included in the list of witnesses

while filing the charge-sheet and their status is shown as eyewitnesses. The

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14333

4 MA-3075-2004 MLC forms of both the appellants-claimants reveal that they were filled up on 18.01.2003 i.e. three days after the accident. The MLC examination reports of both the appellants-claimants reveal that both of them had previously taken some treatment, but documents of that earlier treatment were not placed before the Tribunal. Consequently, the information given to the previous doctor by appellants-claimants about the history of incident in which they got injured, cannot be figured out. It can, however, be assumed with certainty that the fact of receiving injuries in an accident case was not reported to the previous doctor, otherwise information of medico-legal case would have been sent by said doctor to the concerned police station. This Court does not have any document of that nature on the records of either case of the Tribunal. The contradiction in the claim petitions as well as in the MLC reports of both the appellants-claimants about the number of injuries sustained in the accident was also one of the reasons for rejecting the claim of appellants by the Tribunal.

10. In the absence of testimony of a reliable eyewitness, contradictions in pleadings and the documents, withholding the documents of earlier treatment, non-disclosure of names of appellants-claimants, in the FIR itself, as injured persons and delay caused in filling up the MLC forms of by appellants-claimants are significant facts to disbelieve the contentions of by appellants-claimants. Instead of explaining these discrepancies, appellant Mohd. Navsar alias Naushad has claimed that his MLC was done on 15.01.2003 itself and on the same date his X-ray examination was done while date of MLC examination is 18.01.2003 and X-ray examination is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14333

5 MA-3075-2004 22.01.2003 with a specific remark in MLC examination report that prior to 18.01.2003 victim was taking treatment from some other doctor. In these set of facts, the Tribunal was justified in disbelieving the contentions of by appellants-claimants about their getting injured in the alleged accident.

11. The next aspect of dispute was that appellants-claimants had pleaded a case before the Tribunal that they were travelling in the truck in the capacity of labourers but Tribunal rightly observed that in their claim petitions, their profession as labourers was not disclosed and claiming to be motor mechanics/tire mechanics, they were prompted to assess compensation amount only on the basis of their income from the profession of mechanics and not from their employment as labourers.

12. Further, the claim petitions did not disclose, whether appellants- claimants were in the regular employment of the truck owner or were hired on the date of accident itself to execute any particular task. There is also a silence on the fact whether they were assigned the task of loading the truck or unloading it. The employer/hirer of appellants-claimants was not examined to give credibility to the fact of alleged employment of appellants- claimants.

13. From the facts and evidence placed before the Tribunal, it is not established that the appellants-claimants were travelling as labourers in the offending truck and it has been rightly observed by the Tribunal that risk of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a transport vehicle was not covered under the Insurance Policy.

13. In consideration of relevant facts discussed in foregoing paragraphs, it is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14333

6 MA-3075-2004 held that the finding of the Tribunal holding that appellants-claimants failed to prove that they were injured in any road traffic accident and also that their risk was covered under any Insurance Policy, the dismissal of their claim petitions was in accordance with law and facts. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned awards. The appeals resultantly fail.

15. Appeals are accordingly dismissed and disposed of.

16. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent back to the concerned Tribunal for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

skt