[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Singh vs Hariom Sharma on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15567
1 CR-563-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 563 of 2023
DINESH SINGH
Versus
HARIOM SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Aman Patel - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Singh - Advocate for the Respondent.
ORDER
The present Revision has been filed by the owner being aggrieved by the award passed
by the Claims Tribunal whereby an amount of Rs.71,353/- has been awarded to the
Respondent/Claimant by the Claims Tribunal.
2. The Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.39,325/- towards Bills
of medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards Special diet and Rs.9,000/- towards Loss of
income alongwith Rs.5,000/- towards Pain and suffering, total amounting to
Rs.71,353/- towards compensation arising from the accident dated 04.05.2017 in which the
Respondent/claimant is said to have sustained grievous injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner has vehemently argued before this Court
that the case before the Tribunal was utterly frivolous and it was the respondent/claimant
falling down from his own motorcycle and sustaining some minor injuries. It is argued that
the Tribunal has failed to see through the utter falsity of the claim and the claim being
utterly frivolous in nature. It is argued that the Vehicle was not involved at all in the
accident. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per claimants, the accident
took place on 04.05.2017 whereas the FIR was lodged on 03.06.2017, which is after one
month. The claimant admits the presence of two persons namely Pushpendra and
Kshatrapati in his deposition and both these persons appeared in the witness box and
supported the version of the respondent only to the extent that though there was accident of
the claimant, but the auto rickshaw of the present Petitioner was not involved and the
accident took place without involvement of any other Vehicle.
4. It is argued that these two witnesses namely, Pushpendra and Kshatrapati appeared
in the witness box as DW-1 and DW-2 and nothing could be culled out in their cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15567
2 CR-563-2023
examination by the claimant so as to disbelieve their testimony and admittedly, they were
present on the spot. It is argued that the claimant had failed to file any document to show
that he sustained any injuries from the said accident and to the effect that the said accident
had any involvement of the Vehicle in question. On these grounds, it is vehemently prayed
to set aside the award of the Tribunal and to reject the claim application on the ground that
it was an utterly frivolous claim.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has vehemently opposed the
aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner. It is contended that the
Claimant had approached the Civil Hospital, Amarpatan in the night of 04.05.2017 itself
and Ex.P-4 is the pre-MLC. It is further argued that as per Bill of hospitalization Ex.P-17,
in fact a much higher quantum of amount was spent by the claimant in his treatment and the
claims Tribunal has in fact awarded a very miniscule amount as against the amount spent by
the claimant in his treatment. It is argued that no real cause of action accrues to the
Petitioner/owner to challenge the very well justified award which in fact is much below the
actual quantum to which it should have been passed looking to the bills of medical
treatment and looking to the Certificate of permanent disability which have been placed on
record before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is argued that this Court should not interfere in the
impugned award, more so in exercise of its very limited supervisory jurisdiction of Revision
under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. On these grounds, it is vehemently prayed
to reject the Petition and confirm the award of the Tribunal.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case, as per the claim application, the accident occurred in the night of
04.05.2017 at about 8.00-9.00 p.m. when Auto rickshaw No. MP-19/R-3049 driven by the
present applicant dashed with the motor cycle of the claimant/respondent. Admittedly, on
the date of accident, the Auto rickshaw was not insured and therefore, the Claim Petition
has been filed without impleading any Insurance Company. In the Claim Petition, it has
been pleaded that the applicant got fractures in the left leg beneath his back and in the right
leg below knee and he also got abrasions in his hands, legs, nose, face, head and back.
8. The claimant has relied on Ex.P-4 which is the Pre-MLC of Civil Hospital,
Amarpatan, District Satna mentioning that there is a crush injury present over right leg
caused by hard and blunt object and the Patient further complains of pain over left leg
(thigh). Thereafter, there is no further treatment paper of any hospital in respect of claimant
of this case named Hariom Sharma, except Ex. P-11 and P-17, that are being dealt with
later in this order. Though one discharge ticket is there, but it is of the other injured person
namely Ramhit Saket. In respect of the present claimant, the other paper available is one
prescription of Dr. Ateeq Khan, an Orthopaedic Specialist. The original of this prescription
is placed on record as Ex.P-11 and as per this Ex.P-11, this prescription has been prepared
on 06.08.2013 while the accident took place allegedly in May, 2017. The bottom side of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15567
3 CR-563-2023
this prescription mentions the date 28.08.2014 which has been scored out and changed to
28.08.2017 which is in bottom left corner of this document and in the bottom right corner of
this prescription, the date 20.08.2014 is mentioned and the year has been scored out with
cross mark. On the overleaf of this prescription, certain entries are made of June, 2017 and
again of August, 2017.
9. This entire document is very suspicious as it starts in the year 2013 and ends in the
year 2017. In the front portion of this document, two dates mentioned as 20.08.2014 and
28.08.2014 have been manipulated and modified to 2017. If the dates on the front page
were indeed of August, 2017, then there was no reason that the Doctor had made his note
on the overleaf page in June 2017. The entries in the overleaf page could have been made
only after exhausting the front page of the prescription but this prescription itself shows that
it is nothing, but a piece of manipulation.
10. Certain cash memos of medicines are also on record. The cash memo Ex.P-13 does
not mention any number of cash memo. Same is the position for the cash memo at Ex.P-14.
Cash memo Ex.P-15 mentions one number but again cash memo Ex.P-16 does not mention
any number. A Bill of Life Care Medical Centre is recorded as Ex.P-17 as per which the
Petitioner is stated to have been admitted from 06.05.2017 to 10.05.2017 under treatment of
Dr. M.A. Khan, the same Doctor whose prescription is utterly suspicious as already noted
above.
11. This document Ex.P-17 is simply a cash memo type bill stated to be a bill issued
by a Hospital and amounting to Rs.39,325/-. However, neither the name of any procedure
has been mentioned in this Bill nor any discharge ticket has been prepared and even this
much is not mentioned what process was undergone by the patient. It does not mention that
what medicine was given and even does not mention the date of admission and the date of
discharge but simply mentions that Bill is for the period 06.05.2017 to 10.05.2017.
Therefore, this Bill is also utterly suspicious and even the number in the Bill is mentioned
by hand and is not a pre-numbered Bill and even the number has been overwritten. This Bill
is stated to be issued on 15.08.2017 and mentions treatment to be taken from 06.05.2017 to
10.05.2017, which again casts suspicion on this bill.
12. As discussed above, on the basis of aforesaid Bills, no conclusion can be drawn
that the claimant has undergone the treatment and spent the amount as mentioned in the
aforesaid Bills.
13. The claimant further relied on a permanent disability Certificate Ex.P-18 which
categorically mentions that he is suffering from 80% disability of deafness. The accident
was stated to have resulted in sustaining fractures in the legs but the permanent disability
Certificate mentions it to be a case of deafness. The disability Certificate also mentions that
it is issued on the basis of report by Audiologist of District Hospital, Satna. To connect this
Disability Certificate with the accident, though no pleadings are made in the claim
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15567
4 CR-563-2023
application but in the Affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., the claimant had
mentioned that in Life Care Medical Centre, Satna, his back leg and ear was operated upon
which is nothing but an attempt to connect the Disability Certificate with the injuries. Even
the word "ear" has been inserted in the affidavit by way of over-writing by hand, that seems
to be an afterthought.
14. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence which has been placed on record,
there is nothing which inspires the confidence of this Court to believe that the Petitioner has
indeed got such treatments which have been indicated in such Bills. So far as the oral and
ocular evidence is concerned, the Claimant himself was examined as AW-1 and in para 10
of his cross examination, he admitted that two persons named Pushpendra Singh and
Kshatrapati had reached to the spot of accident and they had called the police Vehicle by
calling number 100. These two persons rescued the claimant and his companion Ramhit
Saket and brought them to Amarpatan Hospital. Therefore, the presence of Kshatrapati and
Pushpendra on the scene of the accident is admitted by the claimant. The aforesaid two
persons were duly examined in evidence at the instance of the Petitioner/owner and both
these persons deposed that though motorcycle of the Claimant had met with some accident,
but the accident was not with the Auto rickshaw of the present applicant. These witnesses
could not be demolished in their cross examination.
15. Even the Pre-MLC of Civil Hospital, Amarpatan (Ex.P-4), mentions crush injury
present over right lower limb and pain over left thigh. This in itself would not lead to any
inference that whether this injury was caused by falling down from motorcycle or by any
other vehicle dashing with the motor cycle. The two persons whose presence is admitted by
the claimant, have stated categorically that the accident took place without involvement of
any other Vehicle.
16. Moreover, the medical treatment papers as already discussed above in detail are
highly suspicious and cannot lead to any inference in favour of the claimant that he had
indeed sustained such injuries in the accident as are being claimed by him and there seems
to be lot of manipulation in the medical documents.
17. Apart from the above, there is delay in lodging of FIR in as much as the accident
took place on 04.05.2017 but FIR has been lodged on 03.06.2017 which also casts some
aspersions from the case of the claimant and in view of the fact of late lodging of the FIR,
the assertions in the claim Petition require some deeper scrutiny, though at the outset, they
cannot be stated to be false only for the FIR being belated.
18. However, upon deeper scrutiny, the assertions made in the claim petition do not at
all inspire the confidence of this Court to infer that the accident took place in the manner as
projected by the claimant and involvement of the Vehicle of the Petitioner also becomes
highly suspicious and improbable looking to the deposition of ocular witnesses whose
presence is admitted and who did not support involvement of the vehicle of the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15567
5 CR-563-2023
19. Consequently, the impugned award cannot be upheld. It deserves to be and is
hereby set aside. The Claim Petition filed by the claimant stands dismissed. If any amount
has been deposited by the Petitioner in compliance of the impugned award, it be refunded
back to the Petitioner by the Tribunal.
20. In the above terms, the present Revision stands allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
