IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

nd

ON THE 22 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 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 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 e