[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramhet Jatava vs Rakesh Yadav on 26 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
1 MA-4171-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 4171 of 2018
RAMHET JATAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
RAKESH YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Tapendra Sharma - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri Badri Nath Malhotra- Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/claimants seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated
03.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri
(hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.
224/2017, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by
the claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2017, Matadin died on the
spot while working in a field at Pachipura when his right hand got trapped in
a thresher due to the rash and negligent operation of Massey tractor No. MP-
33/AA-0381 by respondent No.1. The incident was reported to the police and
an FIR was registered at the concerned Police Station. The tractor was owned
by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
2 MA-4171-2018
3. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims
Tribunal seeking compensation. The respondents filed their replies and
denied the averments made in the claim petition. After framing of issues and
recording of evidence, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious legal
error in dismissing the claim without properly appreciating the evidence on
record and the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the oral and
documentary evidence clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent act of respondent No.1, who suddenly increased the speed
of tractor No. MP-33-AA-0381 without any signal, as a result of which the
thresher pulled the deceased Matadin Jatav, causing fatal injuries. It is further
submitted that the accident arose out of the use of the tractor and thresher for
agricultural purposes, therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally
liable to pay just and reasonable compensation to the appellants. Hence,
prayer is made for setting aside the impugned award.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
appeal and prayed for its dismissal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record
of the Claims Tribunal.
7. The first moot point for determination is whether the deceased
himself was responsible for the alleged incident and whether the driver of the
offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident.
8. The contents of the FIR (Ex.P-2) are as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
3 MA-4171-2018
"फ रया दया बीरोबाई पिन रामहे त जाटव उ 45 साल िनवासी
पचीपुरा ने उप थत थाना आकर जुवानी रपोट कया क आज दनाँक
28/03/17 को सुबह 10 बजे मेरे लडका माताद न को राजे द यादव
मजदरू के िलये अपने गोडे वाले पर लेकर गया था जसम मेरे लड़का
को गेहू का पूरा दे ने पर खड़ा कर दया कर वन 4 बजे े टर मैसी
.MP 33 AA 0381 पर राकेश यादव ै टर के आगे बैठ गया और
उसने थेसर को नह ं दे खा लापरवाह से े टर थेसर चलता रहा जससे
मेरा लडका माताद न का दा हना हाथ थेसर म चला गया राकेश ारा
घोर लापरवाह क गयी है जससे मेरे लडके माताद न जाटव क मौके
पर म यु हो गई, उस समय मौके पर राजे द जाटव मौजूद था जसने
घटना दे खी है सो रपोट करती हू ँ कायवाह क जावे"
9. Ramhet, father of the deceased, categorically stated in his evidence
that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the tractor in a rash and
negligent manner, due to which his son was pulled into the thresher and his
hand was crushed, resulting in his death. The claimants also filed the FIR
(Ex.P-2), charge-sheet (Ex.P-1) and post-mortem report (Ex.P-5). However,
in the present case, Ramhet himself was not an eye-witness to the incident.
10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is
concerned, it is argued that the claimants failed to adduce any eye-witness to
prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that,
in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the
burden lies upon the claimants to establish rash and negligent driving by the
driver.
11. It is true that in the present case, the claimants were unable to
produce any eye-witness, and Ramhet was admittedly not an eye-witness to
the incident.
12. 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 by the Tribunal that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
4 MA-4171-2018
deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question.
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. here 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
5 MA-4171-2018
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
6 MA-4171-2018
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 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 Basant Kumar Vs Chatrpal Singh, 2003 ACJ 369 , it was held by
Coordinate Bench of this Court held that burden to prove lies on driver that
accident had not occurred and also in M.P. State Road Corporation Vs Vaijanti
and others, 1995 ACJ 560 , it was held that if driver is not examined then adverse
inference may be drawn against him.
17. In the present case, it stands established that the deceased died due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
7 MA-4171-2018
to the use of the tractor and thresher. The police registered a criminal case
against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed a charge-sheet against
him. However, the driver and owner failed to lead any evidence before the
Claims Tribunal to rebut the criminal documents and oral evidence adduced
by the claimants. Therefore, the presumption of negligence operates against
them.
18. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal
committed an error in holding that the deceased himself was solely
responsible for the alleged accident. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the
Claims Tribunal in this regard is set aside, and this Court holds that the
driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the alleged accident.
19. Now, the second moot question for consideration is whether the
thresher, which was not insured and was used with the tractor, makes the
Insurance Company liable to pay compensation or not.
20. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the tractor was being used
for the threshing process at the time of the alleged incident and the deceased
was working on the thresher machine attached to the tractor. Due to the
sudden increase in speed of the tractor, the head and hand of the deceased
were crushed in the thresher machine, as a result of which he sustained
serious injuries and subsequently died in the hospital.
21. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High
Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savthanji Khodaji Thako, 2008
ACJ 2486 (Gujarat), held that when the tractor and thresher are fitted with
each other and are put to use for threshing wheat, and due to rash and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
8 MA-4171-2018
negligent use of the tractor by the driver the deceased dies, the argument of
the Insurance Company that the thresher was not insured is not tenable. The
thresher is used along with the tractor, and since the tractor was insured, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding that the
thresher was not insured and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation.
23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding
that the driver of the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident
and that there was a breach of the insurance policy. The impugned award
passed by the Claims Tribunal is erroneous and deserves to be set
aside. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the claimants is allowed. The
Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation to the claimants as
assessed by Claims Tribunal in its impugned award.
24. The claimants shall be entitled to get interest on the awarded
amount from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Claims
Tribunal, i.e., 27.06.2017, till the date of deposit of the compensation
amount, at the rate of 7% per annum.
25. In view of the above, this Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7621
9 MA-4171-2018
*AVI*
