IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA th ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 1468 of 2017 BETWEEN:-

1. ACHCHHELAL S/O BABULAL AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SMT. GULAB BAI W/O ACHCHHELAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. MOOLCHAND S/O ACHCHHELAL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 4. KU. JIYA D/O ACHCHHELAL, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 5. SMT. REKHA W/O MOOLCHAND AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL R/O VILLAGE GANESHGANJ, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI ISHTEYAQ HUSAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHAMBHU DAYAL SAHU S/O KUNNAI SAHU RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIJORA P.S. KHARGAPUR, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

(DRIVER VEHICLE NO.M.P. 16 E/5824)

2. PACHAM SINGH RAJPOOT, S/O BASANTE RAJPOOT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADERA, (BHALESI) P.S BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. MUNNALAL ASATI (PIPRAWALE), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARGAPUR, P.S KHARGAPUR, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SUSHIL K. JHA - ADVOCATE)

Reserved on : 12.01.2024 Pronounced on: 13.02.2024 This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by claimants/ appellants to challenge the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), Tikamgarh, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.135/2015. By this award delivered on 27.8.2016, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of claimants/appellants for the reason that the alleged accident was not proved by any eyewitness.

2. Brief facts of the claim petition are that claimants/appellants are the parents and siblings of deceased Deendayal, who allegedly met with a road accident on 18.4.2010 when the motorcycle driven by Surendra was hit by the motorcycle of respondent no.1 who was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently. It was claimed that Deendayal was the pillion rider on the motorcycle of Surendra and on account of this accident, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. A claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed for seeking compensation of Rs.30,36,000/- but it was dismissed for the reason that the accident was not proved by any eyewitness.

3. The grounds raised in this miscellaneous appeal are that the learned Tribunal committed grave illegality in dismissing the claim; the spot Panchnama, Ex.P-5, clearly established the accident and also the recovery of dead body from the spot; moreover, the offending vehicle was seized from the spot; two persons had died in the accident; the principle of res ipsa loquitur was applicable on the basis of documents prepared about the scene of crime but the learned Tribunal failed to do justice; it was the duty of the Tribunal to call the eyewitness, namely Laxman Chadar, for cross-examination as he had seen the incident but instead of directing the witness to remain present before the Tribunal, the matter was decided and dismissed. The appellants being laymen and rustic villagers were not aware of the intricacies of law. It is, therefore, prayed that the matter should be remanded on limited point of recording the statements of Laxman Chadar and the impugned award should be set aside or else the claim petition be allowed for the amount of compensation prayed for in the claim petition along with the interest @ 9 per cent per annum.

4. The respondent nos.1 to 3 were served in the case but only counsel for respondent no.1 appeared and argued the matter finally.

5. Record of the Tribunal reveals that the claim petition was filed on

4.10.2010 and statements of claimant/appellant no.1 Achchhelal were recorded. The affidavit of Laxman Chadar for examination-in-chief was submitted on 14.8.2012 but later this witness failed to appear before the Tribunal for his cross-examination. Two other witnesses were examined on behalf of claimants/appellants, namely Ganpat and Badli, but they failed to testify of having seen the incident. In the light