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

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 4540 of 2025 RAJDEEP RAGHUWANSHI Versus SHANKAR SHARMA AGE 16 YEARS THROUGH HIS FATHER SHRI SURESH SHARMA Appearance:

Shri Harshit Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent despite service of notice.

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant, who is both the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle, being aggrieved by the award dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ashoknagar (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 14/2024, whereby compensation was awarded in favour of the claimant and the appellant was fastened with liability.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.10.2023 at about 5:30 PM, the claimant/injured was allegedly proceeding from his house to his agricultural field. When he reached near the house of Brijesh Raghuvanshi situated in village Madinamadar, it was alleged that the appellant, while driving a green John Deere Tractor bearing Registration No. MP-67-AA-8368, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and struck the claimant.

Due to the impact, the claimant allegedly fell down and the front wheel of the tractor ran over his left hand, resulting in serious injuries including tearing of the thumb. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Shadora, District Ashoknagar. After investigation, a final report was submitted. Thereafter, the claimant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Upon trial, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimant by the impugned award dated 28.02.2025.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant filed this appeal on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law and on facts in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant, despite there being no cogent or reliable evidence to establish negligence. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 20 days, which creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged accident and the implication of the appellant. The injured/claimant, who was the most material witness to prove the manner of accident, rashness, negligence, and injuries, did not enter the witness box. It is further submitted that the claimant examined only his father (PW-1) and brother (PW-2), who admittedly were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged accident and are therefore hearsay witnesses. Though it was stated in the FIR that Devendra Sharma (brother of the claimant) and Lallu Prajapati were eye-witnesses to the accident, neither of them informed the police at the relevant time nor were they examined before the Tribunal. Despite having knowledge of the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle from the date of the incident, neither the claimant nor the alleged eye-witnesses informed the police promptly. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the medical evidence was not fully proved, as the doctor who performed the surgery was not examined, and there was unexplained delay and gap between medical procedures. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the appellant be exonerated from liability.

4. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

6. It is true that if the claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. then delay in lodging F.I.R. should not be treated as fatal for such proceeding. The Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20 and 21 has held as under:-

20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant