IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 830 of 2001 NASEEM AHMAD AND OTHERS Versus AMBIKA PRASAD PATEL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ishteyaq Hussain - Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondents, though served.

Heard on 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 19.01.2026 ORDER This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by appellants/claimants challenging the impugned award passed on 31.03.2001 by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sihora in M.V.C. case No. 288/1999, by which their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for seeking compensation for death of their relative was dismissed.

2. Facts briefly stated are that on seeing a cattle hit by bus bearing registration No. MP-07-2817, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, deceased Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad alongwith Rajesh Prasad Khare chased the vehicle and forced it to stop near Gauri Tiraha. Deceased Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad was on his motorcycle and when he asked the bus driver to take the bus to the police station, respondent No.1 started the bus and with rash and negligent driving hit and crushed the Bablu @

Nisar Ahmad and his motorcycle. Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are the parents and appellant No.2 is the brother of the deceased-Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad, who jointly filed claim petition before Tribunal for seeking compensation of Rs.11,50,000/-for the accidental death of deceased Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad. The claim petition was opposed by respondent No.2 by claiming that the death was felonious and not accidental and therefore, the provision of Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act was not attracted. Learned Tribunal after holding the trial, dismissed the claim petition by observing that the death of Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad was not accidental and hence, not covered under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

4. In present appeal the grounds of contention are that the learned Tribunal has committed mistake in holding that for the death of Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad no compensation could be awarded as it was an act of murder; it ignored to acknowledge from the facts and evidence that vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 resulting into death of Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad and it was not a pure and simple case of murder. A request is accordingly made to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

5. No one appeared on behalf of respondents before this Court to contest the appeal.

6. Counsel for the appellant has been heard and record of the Tribunal has been perused.

7. Before the learned Tribunal, appellants examined total three witnesses, who were claimant Naseem Ahmad (A.W. 1) and two eye witnesses Ganesh Prasad Khare (A.W. 2) and Virendra Kumar (A.W. 3). No witness was examined by respondents to set up their defence. Further, appellants had relied on the documents of criminal case, which were marked as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/16 before the Tribunal.

8. From Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1), FIR (Ex. P/2) and Merg Intimation (Ex. P/3) etc., it is evident that a case of murder was registered against respondent No.1 for intentionally causing death of Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad by crushing him under his bus bearing registration No. MP-07-2817. These facts suggest that initially the crime was registered under Section 302 of IPC but no document is available on record to show that the final charge-sheet was also filed under that provision and there is also no evidence to establish that respondent No.1 was ultimately convicted and punished for the offence of murder of Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad. Thus, merely on the basis of initial stage of registration of crime no viable assumption is available that the case ultimately turned out to be a murder case.

9. Facts of the case suggest that Bablu @ Nisar Ahmad was anguished by the fact that respondent No.1 had hit a cattle while driving his bus rashly and negligently and therefore, decea