SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2093

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Maharajsingh – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Rathaur – Respondent
MA 662/2016



Advocates:
Pradeep Katare,

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3746

1 MA-662-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. APPEAL No. 662 of 2016

MAHARAJSINGH AND OTHERS

Versus

RAMESH RATHAUR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar and Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta-Advocate

for appellants/claimants.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance

Company.

ORDER

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 01.04.2016

passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bhind (M.P.)

(hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 65/2015,

whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation was

dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2015 at about 6:30 p.m., the

deceased Santosh Singh was proceeding slowly on his motorcycle from village

Tikri towards Bhind. When he reached Pithanpura–Muralipura Road near

Pitambara Brick Kiln, a red coloured Eicher tractor bearing registration No. MP-

30-M-3086, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle of the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:50:49 PM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3746

2 MA-662-2016

deceased. As a result of the said accident, Santosh Singh died on the spot. In

connection with the incident, Crime No. 117/2015 was registered at Police Station

Dehat Bhind initially against an unknown vehicle, and after investigation, a

charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.1, Ramesh Rathore.

3. The respondents filed their written statements before the Claims Tribunal.

After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Claims Tribunal dismissed

the claim petition holding that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the

accident was not proved.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants/claimants have filed

the present appeal contending that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is

arbitrary and contrary to law. It was submitted that once the police registered a

case and filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, a

presumption arises that the said driver was responsible for the accident. It was

further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was convicted by the

appellate criminal court. Reliance was placed on the decision of a coordinate

Bench of this Court in Smt. Versa and others v. Dyaldas Motwani, MA No.

1525/2009, decided on 08.01.2024. On these grounds, it was prayed that the

impugned award be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the

impugned award and submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was

subsequently acquitted by this Court in revision, and therefore, the findings

recorded by the Claims Tribunal do not warrant interference.

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

Tribunal.

7. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the accident occurred on

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA

Signing time: 1/31/2026

12:50:49 PM

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3746

3 MA-662-2016

23.03.2015 and the FIR was lodged by Bhoop Singh, the brother-in-law (बहनोई)

of the deceased, against an unknown vehicle. After registration of the FIR, the

police investigated the matter and after about two months seized the alleged

offending vehicle on 25.05.2015 vide Ex.P/6 and thereafter filed the charge-sheet.

8. Maharaj Singh (A.W.1), the father of the deceased, in his cross-

examination, categorically admitted that he was not an eyewitness and had not

seen the accident.

9. Murari (A.W.2), who was examined as an eyewitness, stated in his

examination-in-chief that at the time of the accident he was travelling on his

motorcycle towards Lakhanpura and the deceased was going ahead of him on

another motorcycle. According to him, a red coloured Eicher tractor coming from

the opposite direction dashed against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top