1 2025:CGHC:36139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 478 of 2024 1. Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 2nd Floor, Malay Heights, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Opp. RBI, Raipur, Tah & Distt. Raipur (CG) ... Appellant-insurer versus 1. Smt. Chumman Patel W/o Late Chitrakant Patel Aged About 24 Years 2. Ku. Litika Patel D/o Late Chitrakant Patel Aged About 4 Years 3. Rishabh Kumar Patel S/o Late Chitrakant Patel Aged About 3 Years Respondents No.2 & 3 being minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Chumman Patel 4. Smt. Shivbati Patel W/o Goverdhan Patel Aged About 50 Years 5. Goverdhan Patel S/o Late Khorbahra Patel Aged About 55 Years All are R/o village Khiloura, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) Claimants 6. Maheshwar Shivare S/o Manbodhi Ram Shivare Aged About 27 Years R/o Vill. Dattarenga, Ward No. 17, P.S. Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Owner ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 25/7/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal seeking exoneration from the liability to pay amount of compensation awarded to claimants by the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.1.2024 passed in Claim Case No.361/2022 on the ground of false involvement of the offending vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the accident was reported in concerned police station after inordinate delay of 50 days against unknown vehicle and even in the inquest of deceased, it is mentioned that motorcycle of deceased was dashed by unknown vehicle, which creates serious doubt about the involvement of offending vehicle in accident in question. However, the Claims Tribunal ignoring the aforesaid facts and relying on the evidence of claimants, FIR (Ex.P-2) and medical documents, has wrongly concluded that accident was caused by the offending vehicle. In alternate, he submits that overall compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side and deserves to be reduced suitably. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the record of claim case. 3 4. Admitted facts of case are that deceased died on 21.2.2022 consequent to grievous injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 20.2.2022. Intimation regarding death of deceased was sent by VY Hospital, Raipur and based upon which Merg bearing No.4/22 was registered on 22.2.2022. In this merg, it is mentioned that deceased died due to head injury sustained by him in accident. FIR of accident was registered on 12.4.2022. Claim application was filed on 26.4.2022 and in order to prove that deceased in a road traffic accident, claimants examined Chumman Lal Nishad as AW-2 to prove the factum of accident. This witness has stated that on the fateful date, when he was waiting for auto-rickshaw in front of Floral City, Dunda, one motorcycle dashed the motorcycle of deceased and caused accident. As a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries, he with the help of others took the deceased to VY Hospital, Raipur where he died during treatment. He further deposed that after about 1½ months, police came to him, upon inquiry, he narrated the accident. This witness was examined at length but he stuck to the version stated in examination-in-chief. 5. Meanwhile, after a detailed investigation being done by the police, involvement of offending motorcycle has been found, and therefore a charge sheet was filed against non-applicant No.1 citing Chumman Lal Nishad and Lav Kumar Nishad as 4 eyewitnesses. 6. The owner-cum-driver of offending motorcycle i.e. non- applicant No.1 did not participate in claim proceedings to counter pleadings of claimants or to establish that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The owner or driver could have been the best person to throw light as to whether the offending vehicle was really involved in the said accident or not. However, perusal of record reveals that appellant- insurance company despite grant of permission under Section 170 of the Act of 1988 did not take any steps to summon non- applicant No.1, owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle to establish its plea of non-involvement of the offending vehicle. 7. In decision of Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 it is ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in claim cases the claimant is not under the obligation to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The claim cases are to be decided on the principle of preponderance of probability. Principle of beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable in such cases. 8. It is also well settled that if the driver of the offending vehicle is not examined on behalf of non-applicants without any tangible explanation, a presumption is liable to be drawn against him that he was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Furthermore, as per settled position in law, where 5 FIR is lodged, charge sheet is filed and the driver of the offending vehicle is facing criminal trial, prima facie it can be presumed that vehicle was involved in the accident and its driver was responsible for accident. 9. In case at hand, the owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle chose not to take part in claim proceeding even though the notice was served on him, insurance company has not taken any steps for examination of the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to prove the case of non-involvement of the vehicle. On the contrary, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by police against offending vehicle which clearly establishes the fact about its involvement in the accident. Thus, it is clear that there is no evidence on record to counter the case of the claimants regarding involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Hence, this Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and it is affirmed. 10. As regards delay in lodging of FIR, from the record it is appearing that information regarding death of deceased due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident caused by unknown vehicle, was sent to the police on 21.2.2022 and based on which, police station concerned registered Merg No.4/22. When the intimation of accident by unknown vehicle was 6 properly given to the police, it is the duty of the police to inquire into the matter, register FIR, and search the vehicle that caused the accident. It cannot be expected from the family members of deceased to search and provide registration of the vehicle which has caused accident. If the police thereafter was lethargic in conducting the merg enquiry then the claimants cannot be blamed. Even it is well established principle of law that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient to dislodge the case of the claimant as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226. Hence, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for appellant that there is delay in lodging of FIR and therefore, the case set-up against the appellant is suspicious, and hence, it is repelled. 11. For the foregoing, the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company is found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI