IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1614 of 2010

STATE OF M.P.

Versus

RAGHUNATH SINGH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anil Babu Mangal - Government Advocate for the

appellant/State.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER Mayana, Guna the vehicle ahead suddenly stopped, as a result of which the claimant’s vehicle hit the said vehicle from behind, causing damage to the claimant’s vehicle. Incident was reported to the police. FIR was registered. After registration of FIR and other formalities, charge sheet has been filed. Thereafter, claimant filed the claim petition. Respondents filed their written statements and denied all the claim averments.

This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/State challenging the impugned award dated 20.07.2010 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No.11/2009, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the

appellant/State.

2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellant, are that on

21.08.2007 at about 10:00 PM, the claimant’s vehicle, Qualis Car bearing registration No. MP-03/6055, was proceeding from Gwalior to Bhopal. At the relevant time, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, along with his gunner Ashok Sharma, was travelling in the said vehicle for official government work. It is alleged that near Village Niyai, Police Station

3. After taking evidence of both the parties and framing the issues, Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by claimant.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, appellant filed this petition with submission that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to facts and law. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was not caused due to the negligent driving of respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that respondent No.1 had accepted his guilt before the criminal court and was convicted under Section 337 of IPC, which clearly establishes negligence on his part and is admissible in evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside and compensation be awarded to the appellant.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is settled law that it is a duty of claimant to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Unless negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is proved, the claimant is not entitled to get compensation

7. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal (2007) 3 SCC 428, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

"Therefore the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Sec. 166 of the Act or under Sec. 163-A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Sec. 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon them-selves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Sec. 163-A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle."

8. In the present case, it was the duty of the appellant/State to examine the driver of the damaged vehicle to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent No.1. However, the appellant did not examine the driver of the damaged vehicle, nor examined any other witness to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, i