IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 634 of 2015 KOK SINGH Versus SURENDRA BASEDIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar- Advocate for Insurance Company.

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 635 of 2015 AASHISH GUPTA Versus SURENDRA BASEDIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Sharma - Advocate for appellant.

Shri B.K.Agrawal- Advocate for Insurance Company.

MISC. APPEAL No. 636 of 2015 SATENDRA RAJPUT Versus SURENDRA BASEDIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Sharma - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar- Advocate for Insurance Company.

MISC. APPEAL No. 637 of 2015 SUNIL RAJPUT Versus SURENDRA BASEDIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Sharma - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar- Advocate for Insurance Company.

ORDER Heard on the IA No. 2704/2015 and IA No. 2705/2015, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in MA No.634/2015 and MA No.635/2015 respectively.

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same is allowed and delay in filing both the misc. appeals is hereby condoned.

3. These Miscellaneous Appeals, namely MA No. 634/2015, MA No.

635/2015, MA No. 636/2015 and MA No. 637/2015, have been filed by the appellants/claimants arising out of the common award dated 09.03.2015 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia (M.P.) in Claim Cases No.53/2014, 51/2014, 50/2014 and 49/2014 respectively, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petitions filed by the claimants seeking compensation.

4. Facts of the case are that on 09.08.2013, all the claimants were going to visit Orchha Ramlal Temple from their village in a Scorpio jeep bearing registration No. MP-09-V-7743, which was being driven by Shamsher. When the vehicle reached near Datia–Seonda Road, Village Laxmanpura, a tractor bearing registration No. MP-32-AA-3959, coming from the opposite direction, was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road. The said tractor collided head-on with the Scorpio jeep, as a result of which the jeep overturned and was completely damaged and the claimants sustained injuries. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Indergarh, District Datia. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Thereafter, the claimants filed claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The respondents filed their replies admitting certain basic facts while denying the remaining allegations and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

5. After framing the issues and recording evidence of both parties, the Claims Tribunal dismissed all the claim petitions.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants in all misc. appeals submitted that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of law, record, and settled principles governing motor accident claims. It was contended that the occurrence of the accident was duly proved on record and despite this, the Claims Tribunal illegally dismissed the claim petitions. It was further argued that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of the accident and, therefore, liability ought to have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellants regarding the accident and arbitrarily held that the accident was not proved. It was also argued that the Tribunal ignored material facts such as the death of Arvind Rajput in the accident, the post-mortem conducted on 10.08.2013, hospitalization of injured persons, and intimation given to the police. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the appeals be allowed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Shri Tomar, opposed Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 634/2015, 636/2015 and 637/2015,