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

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 3318 of 2018 BABLESH SHARMA Versus BALLI@RAFEEK KHAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER Heard on IA No.3096/2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned.

3. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 12.12.2017 passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.10/2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.10.2013, claimant - Bablesh Sharma was riding his Activa scooter from Gwalior to Jaurasi. When he reached near the valley, about half a kilometer before the Jaurasi crossing, respondent No.1, while driving a Bolero pickup loading vehicle bearing registration No. MP-07-GA-4024 from the Dabra side, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the applicant’s Activa from the side. As a result of the accident, the applicant sustained a fracture below the knee and multiple other injuries. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Post Bilaua, Gwalior, FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed.

5. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Respondents No. 1 and 2 failed to appear before the Tribunal despite service of notice, and ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. The Insurance Company filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in dismissing the claim application by wrongly holding that no motor accident occurred, without proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record. It is submitted that the oral and documentary evidence conclusively establishes that respondent No.1, by driving the Bolero pickup bearing registration No. MP-07-GA-4024 in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident by hitting the appellant’s Activa. The police, after due investigation, registered the case, seized the offending vehicle and filed a charge sheet against respondent No.1, which clearly proves the occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the driver. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in ignoring these material facts and arrived at a conclusion contrary to the evidence on record. Learned counsel further submits that immediately after the accident, the appellant informed the police, the hospital also intimated the concerned police station, and thereafter the Bilaua police registered the case against respondent No.1. These circumstances clearly corroborate the appellant’s version, and the rejection of the claim petition on technical grounds reflects non-application of mind. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned award.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposed the appeal and supported the impugned award, submitting that the claimants failed to prove negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle by cogent and reliable evidence.

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

9. It is true that if the claimants have been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for delay in lodging the FIR, such delay should not be treated as fatal to the proceedings.

10. The Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR

2011 SC 1226 in para 20 an