IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 19 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2435 of 2011 LEKHRAM Versus SHAIKH MUNNA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ujjawal Vaidhya - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri T.S. Lamba - Advocate for the respondent No.3.

ORDER This appeal has been filed under the provisions of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging award dated 28/02/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narsinghpur (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 45 of 2009 whereby the claim petitions filed by claimant has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case reveals that on 16.04.2008, the claimant and his wife Smt. Suman were travelling from Gram Ghansaur to gram Gotegaon in the offending bus bearing registration no. MP-49-E-0162. The offending vehicle is a public transport vehicle. As per the averment of the claim petition, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in negligent manner and when the offending vehicle reached near Banjari Ghaat, the radiator of the bus busted, due to which hot water fell upon the body of the claimant and other passengers sitting in the offending bus. This caused bodily injuries to the claimant. The injured were taken to the hospital.

3. The respondent no. 1 was the driver, the respondent no. 2 was the owner and respondent no. 3 was the Insurer/Insurance company of the offending vehicle. An FIR under Crime No. 55 of 2008 at P.S. Dhooma was registered for the offences under section 337, 338 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant has also preferred claim petition claiming Rs.74,000/- as compensation for the injuries caused. The learned tribunal after the completion of the trial has dismissed the claim petition of the claimant vide its award dated

28/02/2011.

4. Heard Shri Ujjwal Vaidhya, learned counsel for the claimant. The learned counsel has criticized the order impugned on the ground that once a police report has been lodged and other documents relating to registration of criminal case are available on record then it is presumed that accident has occurred. The tribunal has erred in coming to conclusion that mechanical report is not available on record whereas it is the duty of the police to get the mechanical report conducted. It was vehemently argued that the accident had caused as the Radiator was not properly filled with water. This is required to be taken care by the driver or owner of the vehicle and on account of their negligence the claimant had to suffer for the fault of others. It is also argued that the claimant was taken to government hospital Dhooma and treatment was provided. A request has been made to set aside the order dated

28/02/2011.

5. E converso, the learned counsel for insurance company Shri T.S.

Lamba has supported the impugned order submitting that a well reasoned and detailed order has been passed by the claims tribunal which requires no interference.

6. With the assistance of the parties I have gone through the record of the case and the order impugned.

7. The record of the case reveals that claim petitions were filed on the ground that the claimant was travelling on a public transport vehicle and she was sitting near the driver seat. During such time, due to radiator burst, the hot water came out and sprinkled upon the claimant which caused injuries upon various parts of the body. The criminal case was set into motion and claim petition was filed. All these series of events suggests that the incident had occurred.

8. The record of the case further reveals that out of this incident, a criminal case under Crime No. 55 of 2008 has been registered for the offences under section 337, 338 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. section 66 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The charge sheet in the matter was duly filed before the competent court on 30/04/2008. The MLC was conducted, seizure of vehicle was done and arrest was also conducted. All these documents