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

th

ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 4171 of 2018 RAMHET JATAVA AND OTHERS Versus RAKESH YADAV AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Tapendra Sharma - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Shri Badri Nath Malhotra- Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 224/2017, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2017, Matadin died on the spot while working in a field at Pachipura when his right hand got trapped in a thresher due to the rash and negligent operation of Massey tractor No. MP- 33/AA-0381 by respondent No.1. The incident was reported to the police and an FIR was registered at the concerned Police Station. The tractor was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

3. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The respondents filed their replies and denied the averments made in the claim petition. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious legal error in dismissing the claim without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the oral and documentary evidence clearly establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1, who suddenly increased the speed of tractor No. MP-33-AA-0381 without any signal, as a result of which the thresher pulled the deceased Matadin Jatav, causing fatal injuries. It is further submitted that the accident arose out of the use of the tractor and thresher for agricultural purposes, therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay just and reasonable compensation to the appellants. Hence, prayer is made for setting aside the impugned award.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and prayed for its dismissal.

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

7. The first moot point for determination is whether the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged incident and whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident.

8. The contents of the FIR (Ex.P-2) are as follows:

"फ(cid:2)रया(cid:6)दया बीरोबाई पिन रामहेत जाटव उ(cid:23) 45 साल िनवासी पचीपरु ा ने उप(cid:28)(cid:29)थत थाना आकर जुवानी (cid:2)रपोट(cid:33) (cid:6)कया (cid:6)क आज (cid:6)दनाँक 28/03/17 को सुबह 10 बजे मेरे लडका माताद(cid:36)न को राजे(cid:37)द यादव मजदरू (cid:36) के िलये अपने गोडे वाले पर लेकर गया था (cid:28)जसम(cid:41) मेरे लड़का को गेहू का परू ा देने पर खड़ा कर (cid:6)दया कर(cid:36)वन 4 बजे (cid:44)े(cid:45)टर मैसी (cid:47).MP 33 AA 0381 पर राके श यादव (cid:44)ै(cid:45)टर के आगे बठै गया और उसने थेसर को नह(cid:36)ं देखा लापरवाह(cid:36) से (cid:44)े(cid:45)टर थेसर चलता रहा (cid:28)जससे मेरा लडका माताद(cid:36)न का दा(cid:6)हना हाथ थेसर म(cid:41) चला गया राके श (cid:53)ारा घोर लापरवाह(cid:36) क(cid:55) गयी है (cid:28)जससे मेरे लडके माताद(cid:36)न जाटव क(cid:55) मौके पर म(cid:57)य ु हो गई, उस समय मौके पर राजे(cid:37)द जाटव मौजूद था (cid:28)जसने

घटना देखी है सो (cid:2)रपोट(cid:33) करती हू ँकायव(cid:33) ाह(cid:36) क(cid:55) जावे"

9. Ramhet, father of the deceased, categorically stated in his evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, due to which his son was pulled into the thresher and his hand was crushed, resulting in his death. The claimants a