Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company Limited ... vs Rafeeka Bee on 20 March, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841
1 MA-6005-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 6005 of 2024
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED RAJEEV NAGAR
VIDISHA MP
Versus
RAFEEKA BEE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamal Kumar Rochlani - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri Anshu Gupta- Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5/Claimants.
ORDER
The instant Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned Award dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 92/2023, whereby compensation of Rs.8,01,255/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants. The appeal has been preferred on the ground of alleged false implication of the insured vehicle.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.04.2023, Nawab Khan was returning to his home at Vidisha on a bicycle when the motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP-40-MW-1248 was driven rashly and negligently by its driver on the wrong side and struck the bicycle. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841 2 MA-6005-2024 deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same during treatment on 23.04.2023. The incident was reported to the police, FIR was registered at Police Station Kararia, District Vidisha. The non-applicants, in their written statements, denied the claim averments.
3. After framing of issues and recording evidence of both the parties, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants.
4. Being aggrieved, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the impugned award is unsustainable in law as the same has been passed without proper appreciation of evidence. It is argued that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in accepting the involvement of the insured motorcycle and in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. It is further contended that there was an unexplained delay of twelve days in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the occurrence of the accident with the insured vehicle. Learned counsel also submitted that reliance placed on the testimony of PW-1 Nabes Khan is misplaced and insufficient to establish rash and negligent driving. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the Claims Tribunal.
7. So far as the contention regarding delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, on perusal of FIR (Ex.P-1), it is evident that the accident occurred on 20.04.2023 and the deceased was admitted on the same day to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841 3 MA-6005-2024 Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government Hospital, Vidisha. The concerned doctors intimated Police Station Kararia on the same date and the deceased was referred for higher treatment to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, where he later succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, an unnatural death was registered (Ex.P-6) under Section 174 of CrPC and after due enquiry, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. So perusal of the criminal record it is established that on the date of accident, the information was received by the police regarding the accident, in other words although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, the delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons.
8. The Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20 and 21 has held as under:-
''20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then,even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.
21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841 4 MA-6005-2024 petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it.
There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
9. Perusal of the Merg intimation, it is evident that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. When the police received the information regarding the accident, they registered the Merg and enquired the matter. Thereafter the FIR was registered and after due investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle. It is not the duty of the family member of the victim who was not on the spot to investigate and give information to the police. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained. After lodging the FIR, the police filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle. However, the driver and owner of the vehicle did not dare to give evidence in rebuttal to the criminal court documents and evidence adduced by the claimants.
10. The next contention raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the claimants were unable to produce any eye witness before the Tribunal, therefore, due to lack of eye witness account, the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle due to which the accident had occurred. So now the question arises for consideration in the present case is whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to the facts of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841 5 MA-6005-2024 present case or not so as to justify the finding by the Tribunal that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question.
11. In the case of Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident "speaks for itself" or tells its own story. here are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence. Salmond on the Law of Torts (15th Ed.) at p. 306 states : "The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies whenever it is so improbable that such an accident would have happened without the negligence of the defendant that a reasonable jury could find without further evidence that it was so caused". In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed., Vol. 28, at page 77, the position is stated thus : "An exception to the general rule is that the burden of proof of the alleged negligence is in the first instance on the plaintiff occurs wherever the facts already established are such that the proper and natural inference arising from them is that the injury complained of was caused by the defendant's negligence, or where the event charged as negligence 'tells its own story' of negligence on the part of the defendant, the story so told being clear and unambiguous". Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the car was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who had the management used proper care."
12. In the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kamalakshy Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841 6 MA-6005-2024 Amma reported in 1987 ACJ 251, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"The maxim res ipsa loquitur is a principle which aids the court in deciding as to the stage at which the onus shifts from one side to the other. Section 114 of the Evidence Act gives a wide discretion to the courts to draw presumptions of fact based on different situations and circumstances. This is in a way, recognition of the principle embodied in the maxim res ipsa loquitur. The leading case on the subject is Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co. (1865) 3 H & C 596. Erle C.J. in the said case has stated that, "where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the 8 of 18 defendants, that the accident arose from want of care''. Evershad M. R. in Moore v. R. Fox & Sons (1956) 1 OB 596 affirmed and followed the principle laid down in Scott's case. Winfield in his famous treatise on Tort, after referring to the decisions which founded the above doctrine, has mentioned the two requirements to attract the above principle. They are, (i) that the "thing" causing the damage be under the control of the defendant or his servants and (ii) that the accident must be such as would not in the ordinary course of things have happened without negligence. This principle which was often found to be a helping guide in the evaluation of evidence in English decisions has been recognised in India also. The Supreme Court in Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 has discussed the applicability of the maxim res ipsa loquitur in civil as also criminal cases, in the light of the provisions of the Evidence Act."
13. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gita Bindal reported in 2013 (8) R.C.R. (Civil) 245 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has summarised the legal position as to applicability of the principle of res ipsa loquitur as under:-
i. Res ipsa loquitur means that the accident speaks for itself. In such cases, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more.
ii. Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841 7 MA-6005-2024 have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.
iii. There are two requirements to attract res ipsa loquitur, (i) that the "thing" causing the damage be under the control of the defendant and (ii) that the accident must be such as would not in the ordinary course of things have happened without negligence.
iv. Res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the normal rule that mere happening of an accident is no evidence of negligence on the part of the driver. This maxim means the mere proof of accident raises the presumption of negligence unless rebutted by the wrongdoer. 9 of 18 v. In some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him, but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident, but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence. This hardship is to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more.
vi. The effect of doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' is to shift the onus to the defendant in the sense that the doctrine continues to operate unless the defendant calls credible evidence which explains how the accident or mishap may have occurred without negligence, and it seems that the operation of the rule is not displaced merely by expert evidence showing, theoretically, possible ways in which the accident might have happened without the defendant's negligence. The doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur', therefore, plays a very significant role in the law of tort and it is not the relic of the past, but the living force of the day in determining the tortuous liability. vii. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice which would result if a plaintiff were invariably compelled to prove the precise cause of the accident and the defendant responsible for it, even when the facts bearing in the matter are at the outset unknown to him and often within the knowledge of the defendant.
14. In the present case, it is established that deceased died in the accident and police after registering the FIR investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle but owner and driver had not dared to adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the criminal documents Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9841 8 MA-6005-2024 and evidence of the claimant produced before the Tribunal. It is the duty of the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part but they were unable to adduce any evidence in this regard. So a presumption must be drawn against them in this regard. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the driver of the vehicle was liable for the accident and it is not a case of false implication of the vehicle.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle caused the accident. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit.
16. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 23-Mar-26 10:45:20 AM