[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sultan Ahirwar vs Ramesh Ahirwar on 22 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2912
1 MA-4680-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 4680 of 2023
SULTAN AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
SEETARAM AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for the appellants/owner and driver.
Shri Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki- Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 4641 of 2023
SULTAN AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMESH AHIRWAR
Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Bohare- Advocate for the appellants/owner and driver.
Shri Vedant Sharma- Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
1. Miscellaneous Appeals, namely MA No. 4680/2023 and MA No.
4641/2023, arise out of the common award dated 14.06.2023 passed by the
Fourth Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guna (M.P.) in Claim
Case Nos. 209/2019 and 10 of 2021, respectively.
2. Both the appeals have been filed by the appellants/owner and driver
challenging the said award on the ground of false involvement of the vehicle.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award and involve common
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2912
2 MA-4680-2023
questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.2019 at about 9:30 PM,
Uday Singh was travelling from Nanakhedi Gandi towards Ghosipura on a
motorcycle belonging to his friend Santosh Ahirwar. When the motorcycle
reached near the house of Ramakrishna Raghuvanshi on Gopalpura Road, a
red coloured tractor bearing registration No. MP-08-F-5645, driven by
respondent No.1, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent
manner and struck the motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, Uday
Singh sustained serious and multiple injuries on different parts of his body
and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Ramesh Ahirwar, who was also
travelling on the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries, including fractures
to his hand and fingers. In connection with the said incident, a report was
lodged at Police Station Guna. Thereafter, FIR was registered. After
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent
Court. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the learned
Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. The learned Tribunal partly allowed
the claim and awarded compensation vide impugned award dated
14.06.2023.
5. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants/owner and driver
have preferred the present appeals on the ground that the impugned award is
arbitrary, without jurisdiction, based on findings contrary to law, and liable
to be set aside. It is contended that from the perusal of the First Information
Report (Ex. P-2), it is evident that initially the report was lodged on the next
day of the incident against an unknown vehicle and the identity of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2912
3 MA-4680-2023
appellants or their tractor was not disclosed by the complainant Ravi
Ahirwar, who was also travelling on the said motorcycle along with the
respondent/claimant Ramesh and the deceased Udai Singh. Neither in the
FIR nor in his police statement was the driver or vehicle identified.
Similarly, the respondent/complainant also did not identify the driver or the
vehicle in his police statement recorded on the next day of the incident. It is
further contended that the registration number of the appellants' tractor was
disclosed for the first time on 19.11.2019, i.e., after 15 days of the incident,
by persons namely Gangaram Jatav and Dharmendra Harijan in their police
statements, and there is no explanation on record for such undue delay in
recording the statements of these witnesses. On the other hand, during cross-
examination in the present case, witness Dharmendra (PW-2) stated that he
had disclosed the identity of the tractor after 2-3 days of the incident to PW-
1 Seetaram (father of deceased Udai Singh) and also informed the concerned
police station after 6-7 days of the incident, but there is no material on record
to substantiate this fact. Thus, the court statement of this witness appears
contradictory to his earlier police statement. It is also contended that the
amount of compensation assessed and awarded by the learned Tribunal is on
the higher side and is liable to be reduced in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the miscellaneous appeals.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of
the Claims Tribunal.
8. On perusal of Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-3), it is found that the accident
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2912
4 MA-4680-2023
occurred on 04.11.2019 at 09:30 p.m. and information was given to the
police on 05.11.2019 at 11:00 a.m. In the Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-3), it is
mentioned that an unknown tractor dashed the motorcycle, due to which
Ramesh Ahirwar sustained injuries and Udai Singh died. After lodging the
Dehati Nalishi and upon investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against
the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was seized on
20.11.2019. Thereafter, the police issued notice under Section 133 of the
Motor Vehicles Act to the owner vide Ex. P-7, and the owner of the
offending vehicle informed the police that driver Sultan was driving the
tractor at the time of the accident. Consequently, the police filed a charge-
sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.
9. It is a settled principle of law that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not a
ground for disbelieving the accident. Further, if the police file a charge-sheet
against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal can presume that the
accident was caused by the said driver. Both these presumptions are
rebuttable, and the burden to rebut such presumptions lies upon the person
who alleges otherwise. Such presumptions can be rebutted by leading
independent evidence or by pointing out contradictions in the evidence led
by the claimant.
10. In the present case, although the claimant Ramesh was cross-
examined at length and the driver of the offending vehicle filed a written
statement contesting the claim, the appellants did not adduce any evidence in
rebuttal of the criminal record or the evidence produced by the claimant
before the Claims Tribunal.
11. It is the duty of the defendant to show either that he was not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2912
5 MA-4680-2023
negligent or that the accident occurred in a manner which does not connote
negligence on his part. However, the appellants failed to adduce any
evidence in this regard, and therefore, an adverse presumption must be
drawn against them.
12. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has not
committed any error in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was
liable for the accident. It is not a case of false implication of the vehicle.
13. Consequently, the misc. appeals are dismissed.
14. Let a copy of this order be kept in connected MA No. 4641/2023.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*AVI*
