Lakhan Kushwah vs Prativrndra Singh Bundel

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32573
1 MA-7818-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
th
ON THE 26 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 7818 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030249072025
LAKHAN KUSHWAH
Versus
PRATIVRNDRA SINGH BUNDEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashfaq Khan - learned counsel for appellant- claimant.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal & Shri Dhruv Agrawal- learned counsel for
respondent No.3- Insurance Company.
None for respondents No. 1 and 2 (driver and owner of offending
vehicle) though served.
ORDER
The instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”), calling in question the Award
dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia, in
Claim Case No. 163 of 2022, whereby the claim petition filed by the
appellant under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation for the
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, was dismissed.
2. Before proceeding to consider the appeal on merits, I.A. No.7747 of
2025, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/27/2026
10:31:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32573
2 MA-7818-2025
condonation of delay of 615 days in filing the appeal, is taken up for

consideration.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a layperson and is not conversant with the technicalities of law.
After obtaining legal advice and consulting his counsel, the appellant decided
to challenge the impugned award. The delay was neither intentional nor
deliberate, and the appeal has been preferred bona fide. The proceedings
arise out of a claim for compensation under the beneficial provisions of the
MV Act, and the appellant would derive no benefit from the dismissal of his
claim petition. Accordingly, the delay may be condoned in the interest of
justice.
4. Upon due consideration of the reasons assigned in the I.A. and in
view of the absence of any written objection on behalf of the Insurance
Company, I.A. No. 7747 of 2025 is allowed, and the delay of 615 days in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
5. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
matter is heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
6. In brief, the necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal, as
narrated by the claimant in his claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, are
that on 22.01.2020, while he was travelling on a motorcycle with his son,
Jayendra Kushwaha, from Village Chirulia towards Datia, a Bolero vehicle
bearing registration No. UP 95 M 3978, allegedly driven rashly and
negligently by respondent No. 1, collided with their motorcycle near Baroni
Tiraha. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and sought compensation of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/27/2026
10:31:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32573
3 MA-7818-2025
Rs. 10,70,000/- from the respondents. The Claims Tribunal, vide the

impugned Award, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Claims
Tribunal has erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
available on record. The FIR registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of
the IPC, along with the medical documents, supports the appellant's case
regarding the alleged accident and the injuries sustained by him. It is further
submitted that motor accident claims are decided on the principle of
preponderance of probabilities and that the evidence ought not to be
examined in a hyper-technical manner. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set
aside the impugned Award.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company supports the impugned Award and submits that the appellant has
failed to establish negligence on the part of the Bolero driver. The statements
of the appellant (A.W.1) and his son, Jayendra Kushwaha (A.W.2),
particularly their admissions in cross-examination, indicate that the
motorcycle was being taken across the divided National Highway at a place
where no designated passage through the divider was available. The spot
map (Ex. P1) supports the defence version, and the subsequent registration of
the FIR, by itself, does not establish negligence on the part of the insured
vehicle's driver. Hence, dismissal of the appeal is prayed for.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the appellant and his
son have admitted in their cross-examination that they were attempting to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/27/2026
10:31:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32573
4 MA-7818-2025
cross the divided National Highway and that the collision occurred when

they could not cross the divider. These admissions, when considered along
with the spot map (Ex. P1) and other evidence on record, materially weaken
the appellant's allegation that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving by the Bolero driver.
11. It is a settled principle of law that motor accident claim
proceedings are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities
and that the evidence must be assessed holistically, as explained by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, AIR 2019 SC 994. Nevertheless, the beneficial nature of the
MV Act does not dispense with the requirement of establishing the necessary
facts to attribute negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle. A person
attempting to cross a divided National Highway is also required to exercise
due care and caution, though the circumstances of each accident must be
independently assessed.
12. In the present case at hand, the admissions made by the appellant
(A.W.1) and his son, Jayendra Kushwaha (A.W.2), in their cross-
examination clearly indicate that they were attempting to cross the divided
National Highway on a motorcycle at a place where no designated passage
through the divider was available and that the collision occurred when they
could not cross the divider and hit the rear wheel of the Bolero. They further
admit that the National Highway could have been crossed at a place
designated for a U-turn which was ahead on the road. These admissions,
when considered in conjunction with the spot map (Ex. P1) and other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/27/2026
10:31:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32573
5 MA-7818-2025
evidence available on record, do not sufficiently establish that the alleged

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Bolero
driver.
13. It is incumbent upon every road user to exercise due care and
caution while crossing a National Highway, particularly where the road is
divided and no authorized crossing is available at the relevant place. A
motorcyclist attempting to cross such a highway must ensure that the
manoeuvre can be undertaken safely without endangering himself or other
road users. Although the proceedings under Section 166 of the MV Act are
governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities and the evidence
is not required to be assessed by applying the strict standard of proof
applicable to criminal proceedings, the claimant must nevertheless establish,
on the basis of the material available on record, the negligence attributed to
the driver of the offending vehicle. The registration of the FIR and the
medical documents establishing the injuries sustained by the appellant do not
conclusively establish negligence on the part of the Bolero driver. On the
contrary, the evidence on record clearly indicates negligence on the part of
the claimant, as he along his son was crossing the National Highway on a
motorcycle at a place where no designated passage through the divider was
available.
14. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Claims
Tribunal that the appellant has failed to establish the necessary basis for
fastening liability upon the respondents. Consequently, the appeal, being
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/27/2026
10:31:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32573
6 MA-7818-2025
devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed, and the impugned Award dated

19.10.2023 passed by the Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. No order as to
costs.
15. Let a copy of this order, along with the record, be sent to the
Claims Tribunal concerned for information.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
MKB

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10/27/2026
10:31:15 AM