Vishvendra Singh @ Bobby vs Inder Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
1 MA-231-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

MISC. APPEAL No. 231 of 2006
VISHVENDRA SINGH @ BOBBY
Versus
INDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Dilip Awasthi- GA appearing for respondents/State.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 232 of 2006
SMT. RAJABETI
Versus
INDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
None for the respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Dilip Awasthi- GA appearing for respondents/State.
JUDGMENT
Reserved on : 15.07.2026
Delivered on: 28.07.2026
These miscellaneous appeals have been preferred by the
appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the common Award dated
16.12.2005 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
2 MA-231-2006
Nos. 7/2005 and 8/2005 whereby the claim petitions preferred by the

claimants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came
to be dismissed.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, involve
common questions of fact and law, and challenge the same Award, they were
heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the claimants before the Claims Tribunal
was that on 15.08.2005 at about 9:15 p.m. claimant Vishvendra Singh, aged
about eight years and studying in Class III, along with his sister Uma and
maternal grandmother Rajabeti, was travelling on a Kinetic Zing Scooty
from Moti Mahal towards Phool Bagh. When they reached near Moti Mahal
Gate, Jeep No. MP 02 0122 allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Scooty. As a result of the
accident, both the claimants sustained grievous injuries. It was pleaded that
Vishvendra Singh suffered a fracture in his leg, underwent surgery, and
sustained permanent disability, whereas Rajabeti also sustained serious
injuries and fractures resulting in permanent disability. It was further pleaded
that an FIR was lodged at Police Station Padav against the driver of the
offending Jeep and, after investigation, criminal proceedings were initiated
against him. On these averments, the claimants sought compensation for the
injuries, disability, and medical expenses suffered by them.
4. The respondents contested the claim petitions by denying the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
3 MA-231-2006
occurrence of the accident involving the offending Jeep. Their defence was

that the Jeep had not collided with the Scooty and that, since three adults and
one child were travelling on the two-wheeler, the Scooty lost balance and fell
on its own after its rider became frightened on seeing the headlights of the
Jeep. Respondent No.1, the driver of the Jeep, also denied the allegations of
rash and negligent driving.
5. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the
parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the involvement of the
offending Jeep was not proved, accepted the defence version that the Scooty
had fallen on its own due to imbalance. The Claims Tribunal further
observed that no direct collision took place between the vehicles and the
Scooty lost balance and fell as the rider of the Scooty panicked upon seeing
the approaching Jeep and, consequently, dismissed both the claim petitions.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the
learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error, both on facts and in
law, in dismissing the claim petitions. It is contended that the Claims
Tribunal failed to appreciate that the FIR had been promptly registered and,
after due investigation, a charge-sheet had been filed against the driver of the
offending Jeep, which constituted sufficient material to establish the
involvement of the vehicle on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation , (2009)
13 SCC 530; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
4 MA-231-2006
656; Meera Bai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025

ACJ 1131; and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287. It is further submitted that the
learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that merely because three adults
and one child were travelling on the Scooty, the accident must have occurred
due to the negligence of its rider. It is argued that triple riding or carrying
passengers in excess of the statutory limit may amount to a violation of
Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but such violation, by itself, does not
establish negligence unless it is shown that the same contributed to the
occurrence of the accident. In support of the said contention, reliance has
been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Devi
Singh v. Vikram Singh and Others, 2008 ACJ 393, and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed Siddiqui & Another v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 ACJ 751. Learned counsel for the claimants further
submits that, having dismissed the claim petitions solely on the issue of
negligence, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to adjudicate the remaining
issues relating to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, the
treatment undergone by them, the medical expenditure incurred, the extent of
permanent disability, and the compensation payable under various heads. It
is, therefore, prayed that the impugned Award be set aside and the matter be
decided in accordance with law.
7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents supported the impugned Award and submitted that the findings
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
5 MA-231-2006
of the evidence on record. It is contended that neither the rider of the Scooty

(Uma) nor the complainant (Jawahar) entered the witness box to substantiate
the case of the claimants. It is further submitted that the evidence on record
clearly establishes that no collision had taken place between the Jeep and the
Scooty and that the accident occurred solely because the Scooty, carrying
three adults and one child, lost balance and fell on its own. It is, therefore,
submitted that no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the Jeep and
the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petitions.
Accordingly, dismissal of both the appeals has been prayed for.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
including the written statements produced before the Claims Tribunal.
9. The record reveals that the alleged accident took place on
15.08.2005 at about 9:15 p.m. The First Information Report was lodged at
Police Station Padav at about 11:20 p.m. on the very same night. Thus, the
finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that there was an inordinate
delay in lodging the FIR is factually incorrect and is not borne out from the
record. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the police conducted
investigation and, finding sufficient material, filed a charge-sheet against
respondent No.1, whereafter criminal proceedings were initiated against him.
10. The legal position governing proceedings under the Motor
Vehicles Act is well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi, Mangla
Ram, and Meera Bai (supra) has consistently held that proceedings before the
Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the claimants are required to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
6 MA-231-2006
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and

not beyond reasonable doubt. It has further been held that contemporaneous
police documents, such as the First Information Report, site map, charge-
sheet, and other records prepared during investigation, constitute relevant
material for determining the question of negligence. A similar view has been
taken by the Delhi High Court in Pushpa Rana (supra).
11. Keeping the aforesaid legal principles in view, this Court has
examined the evidence available on record. The learned Claims Tribunal has
proceeded on the premise that the offending Jeep was falsely implicated and
that no accident involving the said vehicle had taken place. However, while
arriving at such conclusion, the Claims Tribunal has failed to properly
appreciate the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties.
12. Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending Jeep, in his written
statement merely denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving. He did
not plead that the Scooty had struck against a wall or that the accident had
occurred due to any independent cause. However, while entering the witness
box, respondent No.1 introduced an altogether new version by deposing that
on seeing the headlights of the Jeep, the rider of the Scooty lost control and
the Scooty struck against a wall. Such evidence is clearly beyond the
pleadings and ordinarily could not have been relied upon without there being
any foundation in the written statement.
13. Equally significant is the fact that the evidence of the other defence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
7 MA-231-2006
witness, namely, the officer travelling in the Jeep at the relevant time, is

materially at variance with the testimony of respondent No.1. According to
the said witness, the Jeep had already stopped and, on seeing the headlights
of the Jeep, the rider of the Scooty became frightened, lost balance, and the
occupants fell on the road. He did not depose that the Scooty had struck
against any wall. Thus, there is a material inconsistency in the defence
evidence itself with regard to the manner in which the accident allegedly
occurred. These contradictions have not been considered by the learned
Claims Tribunal while recording the finding that the defence version
remained unrebutted.
14. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal was
required to examine the prompt lodging of the FIR, the filing of the charge-
sheet after police investigation, and the contradictions appearing in the
defence evidence in their proper perspective while appreciating the rival
versions. Since these material aspects have not been duly considered, the
finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the offending Jeep was
falsely implicated and that its involvement in the accident was not proved
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said finding deserves to be, and is
hereby, set aside.
15. The learned Claims Tribunal has also observed that since three
adults and one child were travelling on the Scooty, the accident must
necessarily have occurred due to the negligence of its rider. Such an
approach also cannot be sustained in law. Mere violation of Section 128 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
8 MA-231-2006
the Motor Vehicles Act or carrying passengers in excess of the prescribed

limit does not, by itself, establish negligence or contributory negligence
unless it is shown by acceptable evidence that such violation had a causal
connection with the occurrence of the accident.
16. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to record any final
finding either with regard to the rash and negligent driving of respondent
No.1 or with regard to contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the
rider of the Scooty. The material on record discloses that three adults and one
minor child were travelling on the Scooty. Whether such overloading had
any causal connection with the occurrence of the accident, whether the rider
of the Scooty contributed to the accident, and if so, to what extent, are all
questions of fact which require a comprehensive appreciation of the entire
oral and documentary evidence available on record. Since the learned Claims
Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions at the threshold by holding that the
accident involving the offending Jeep itself was not proved, it did not
independently examine these issues nor did it proceed to determine the
quantum of compensation.
17. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the interests of justice would be subserved by setting aside the impugned
Award and remanding the matter to the learned Claims Tribunal for fresh
adjudication. Accordingly, the common Award dated 16.12.2005 passed by
the learned District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in
Claim Case Nos. 7/2005 and 8/2005 is hereby set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
9 MA-231-2006
18. The matters are remanded to the learned Claims Tribunal with a

direction to decide both the claim petitions afresh in accordance with law
after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence already available
on record. While doing so, the learned Claims Tribunal shall independently
consider the evidence relating to the involvement of the offending Jeep, the
manner in which the accident occurred, the plea of rash and negligent driving
against respondent No.1, and the plea of contributory negligence, if any, on
the part of the rider of the Scooty, in the light of the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, if the claimants are found entitled, the
learned Claims Tribunal shall determine the just compensation in accordance
with law.
19. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any final opinion on
the merits of the rival claims regarding negligence, contributory negligence,
or entitlement to compensation. All such issues are expressly left open for
independent adjudication by the learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of the
evidence already available on record, uninfluenced by any observations
contained in the impugned Award or in this judgment, except to the extent
that the findings set aside herein shall not govern the fresh adjudication.
Since the alleged accident pertains to the year 2005, the learned Claims
Tribunal shall make every endeavour to dispose of the claim petitions
expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
appearance of the parties. The appellants shall appear before the Claims
Tribunal on 3rd August, 2026. Upon production of a certified copy of this
judgment before the Claims Tribunal, notice shall be issued to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22645
10 MA-231-2006
respondents, and thereafter the claim petitions shall be decided afresh in

accordance with law.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion and observations, both the
miscellaneous appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
21. A copy of this judgment be also placed with the record of M.A.
No. 232/2006.
22. Records of MACT in both cases be returned to Tribunal
forthwith.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
ar

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN
Signing time: 7/29/2026
7:02:40 AM