Madhya Pradesh High Court
Director General Police vs Dara Singh Yadav on 27 April, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13502
1 MA-10366-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 27th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 10366 of 2025
DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE AND OTHERS
Versus
DARA SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dileep Awasthi - Government Advocate for appellants/State.
ORDER
Heard on the application for condonation of delay moved on behalf of the appellant/State, which is attached to this file without mentioning any document number.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
3. Delay of 80 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
4. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/State under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Shivpuri (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 36/2024, whereby liability has been imposed upon the appellant.
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.2023, between 09:45 to 10:00 AM, complainant Arjun Singh Yadav was proceeding to drop his Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 4/27/2026 6:52:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13502 2 MA-10366-2025 sister, Ku. Saraswati, to her coaching classes on Rajeshwari Road. The deceased was riding ahead of him on a bicycle, while the complainant was following her. When they reached near SP Office Dargah turn from Pohri Chauraha, a blue-coloured bus bearing registration No. MP-03-5472, driven by non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, struck the deceased. As a result, she sustained grievous head and bodily injuries and succumbed to the same. Upon receiving information regarding the incident, the Police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle and, after due investigation, filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court.
6. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 (claimants) filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Appellant filed its written statement denying the averments. The Claims Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence, and thereafter awarded compensation of Rs.6,46,000/- in favour of the claimants.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award, the appellant/State has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the Award is contrary to law, facts, and evidence available on record. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the defence raised by the appellant. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the case involved contributory negligence and has awarded excessive compensation. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned Award be set aside.
8. Looking to the nature of case, there is no need to issue notice to other side.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 4/27/2026 6:52:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13502 3 MA-10366-2025 Award as well as the material available on record.
10. It is evident from the record that the Police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle and, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against him. The driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness box to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants, nor did he challenge the documentary evidence forming part of the criminal record. The Claims Tribunal has duly considered all material aspects of the case and has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference. Further, upon perusal of the impugned Award, it is found that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. No ground is made out to hold that the compensation is excessive or arbitrary.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no substance in the present appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *VJ* Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 4/27/2026 6:52:31 PM