1 (MAC No. 91 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:37231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 91 of 2022 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin 492010 (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Raveena Rajput W/o Late Khaleshwar, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Seepat, Near Ntpc Gate, P.S. Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhishek Rajput S/o Late Khaleshwar, Aged 06 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Raveena Rajput, R/o Village Seepat, Near Ntpc Gate, P.S. Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Kanchan Bai W/o Ramnarayan, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Seepat, Near Ntpc Gate, P.S. Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Ramnarayan S/o Ramlal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Seepat, Near Ntpc Gate, P.S. Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Ashwani Kumar Kaushik, S/o Bisauha Ram Kaushik, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bodsara, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.01 17:45:49 +0530 2 (MAC No. 91 of 2022) SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 30.07 .2025 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), the appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed holding that the vehicle was being driven and owned by non-applicant No.1/ respondent No.5 herein and on the date of accident was duly insured and there was no violation of policy rules and has fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,99,776/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim application i.e. 07.12.2019 upon the insurance company. 2. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offending vehicle has wrongly been involved in the accident whereas it was not involved in the accident as the FIR was lodged with a delay of 77 days and that too against an unknown vehicle and, therefore, the 3 (MAC No. 91 of 2022) insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel for the claimants would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 27.02.2019 and the FIR was lodged with a delay of 77 days on 14.05.2019 vide Ex.P/2&3, against the unknown vehicle/person and the final report was prepared vide Ex.P/1. Respondent No.5 was charge-sheeted under Section 279 & 304A of the IPC before the jurisdictional criminal Court vide Ex.P/1. 6. The appellant-insurance company took a plea that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident as there was a delay of 77 days in lodging the FIR and that too was lodged against an unknown person. The Law Officer of the insurance company – Amit Dev (NAW-01) has been examined and he has stated that no accident has taken place on 27.02.2019 by the offending vehicle, insured by the appellant-insurance company, however, in his cross- examination, he has also admitted that the documents relating to the criminal case filed under Section 279 & 4 (MAC No. 91 of 2022) 304A has not been investigated by the insurance company. As such, it appears that he has only stated that the vehicle was not involved in the accident as the FIR was lodged with a delay of 77 days and that too against an unknown vehicle. 7. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayana1 may be noticed herein profitably in which their Lordships have clearly held that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to deny justice to the victim and observed in para 17 & 18 as under :- “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the 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. 18. 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 scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 5 (MAC No. 91 of 2022) 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. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.” 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid from Ex.P/1, 2 & 3 and other documents relating to the criminal case that the insurance company has failed to prove that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and the Claims Tribunal has rightly proceeded to conclude that the offending vehicle which was involved in the accident and caused death of Khaleshwar Rajput, was owned by respondent No.5 and insured by the appellant- Insurance Company. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of facts based on the materials available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant appeal. 9. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!