1 2025:CGHC:32397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 821 of 2019 1. Yogendra Bhushan S/o Janakram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Lakhanpur Post Office Sutarra Tahsil- Podi Uproda District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, Hall Mukam- Village Mangala, Thana- Civil Line, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh..................(Claimant) ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Dilharan S/o Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Old Indira Awas Sakari Ward No.-8 Batalian Road Thana- Chakarbhatha Tahsil- Thakhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.................(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. CG10/AA/1130)..................(Driver), 2. Vedprakash S/o Radhelal Mishra R/o Vilage Pendri Post Office Sakari Thana-Chakarbhatha Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...............(Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. CG10/AA/1130)............(Owner), 3. Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Commercial Bhawan Devendra Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. CG10/AA/1130..........(Insurer). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 11/7/2025 1. Appellant-claimant, has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 25.3.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.18/2018 by which the Claims Tribunal has dismissed application of claimant for grant of compensation on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove the factum of accident from offending vehicle. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants/appellants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.51,28,000/- under various heads, for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident dated 15.6.2016, which was caused by pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.CG10-AA-1130 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, non- applicant No.1. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and as such they were proceeded ex-parte. 4. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its reply denying the fact of accident from the offending vehicle; claimant himself drove motorcycle rashly and fell from it. At the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid 3 and effective driving license and even there was no fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle, which amounts to violation of condition of insurance policy, hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that claimants could not able to prove that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle and held that the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the claim case was dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground that appellant failed to prove the fact of accident by the offending vehicle. He submits that as a result of accident, FIR was lodged mentioning registration number of offending vehicle based on which a criminal case was registered against driver of offending vehicle and he was charge sheeted. Further, in the course of investigation, the police summoned the owner of offending vehicle and upon interrogation, he had admitted that accident was caused by his pick up vehicle and also certified vide Ex,.P-7 that on 15.6.2016 non-applicant No.1 was driving the offending vehicle. He next contended that the offending vehicle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-5, which was obtained on suprudnama by non-applicant vide Ex.P-9. Even an independent eyewitness namely Sunil Kurre (AW-2) has 4 categorically deposed about the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. Placing reliance on the admission of owner of offending vehicle during inquiry and statement of eyewitness Sunil Kurre, he submits that factum of involvement of offending vehicle stood proved, however, the Tribunal did not consider the material available in record in proper perspective and wrongly dismissed claim application of claimants. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award be set aside and appropriate compensation be awarded to claimant/ appellant herein, as per law. He places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Saroj and others vs. Hetlal and others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 388. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 opposing the submission of learned counsel for appellant, would contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award and the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim case. He submits that the burden lies on the claimants to prove the accident. Since the claimants failed to prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the alleged accident, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the claim case. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and perused the record. 9. Claimant filed application for grant of compensation on account of amputation of his right leg above knee as a result of 5 road traffic accident that occurred on 15.6.2016. For proving the factum of accident, claimant relied upon the police papers i.e. FIR, seizure memo, complaint dated 23.7.2016 etc. Claimant has examined himself as AW-1 and one Sunil Kurre (AW-2) as an eyewitness of accident. 10. Perusal of FIR (Ex.P-2) would show that it was lodged on 12.8.2017 i.e. after about 1 year 2 months from the date of accident and the reason given for delay in lodging FIR is long treatment of appellant. In this FIR, ‘unknown’ is mentioned in the space relating to the particulars of accused. Complaint (Ex.D-1) submitted by claimant before the Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, in which date is wrongly typed as ‘23.7.2026’, also reveals that claimant was hit by an unknown vehicle. 11.Claimant examined himself as AW-1 and stated about the manner in which accident took place and nature of injuries sustained by him. He stated that he was discharged from the hospital after 15 days of accident and thereafter 2-3 times he had visited Bilaspur for treatment/dressing. He has admitted in the cross-examination that at the time of accident, he was aware about the pick-up vehicle that has caused the accident but he came to know about its registration number after two months of accident and he has informed his father in this regard, who later on gave information in the police station. 12. If the claimant and his father were aware of the registration 6 number of the vehicle that caused accident, then why they have not lodged FIR immediately thereafter and as to why they waited till disclosure of particulars of offending vehicle by Sunil Kurre (AW-2). No plausible reason for the aforesaid delay in disclosing particulars of vehicle that caused accident has been offered by the claimant. It is true that delay in lodging FIR could not be a ground to disbelieve the case of claimant in such like proceedings in the backdrop of the conditions prevailing in our society where one can not expect common man to rush to police station for registration of FIR immediately after the accident. At the same time, it is also well settled that it is not open to all and sundry, to approach a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to raise a claim for compensation, at any juncture, after the accident had taken place. The individual concerned, must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time. The question of reasonability would naturally depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In instant case, admittedly accident occurred on 15.6.2016, it is forthcoming from the statement of claimant himself that after 15 days of accident, he was discharged from hospital and returned back home, FIR of accident was lodged on 12.8.2017 and claim application was filed on 8.1.2018. However, neither in the claim application nor in the affidavit of evidence has explained regarding the delay in lodging the complaint/FIR as well as with regard to the filing of the claim petition. Thus, the claimant 7 has not given any reason as to why the claim application was filed belatedly on 8.1.2018 for an accident which occurred on 15.6.2016. This period of delay in lodging FIR and filing of claim application coupled with fact that no plausible explanation has been offered for such a long delay, showing the offending vehicle as the one which caused the accident in question appears to be very doubtful, rather appears to be afterthought. 13. As regards evidence of Sunil Kurre (AW-2), this witness has been cited as an eyewitness of the accident. This witness has stated that on the fateful day, he was going to Barrier Gate Sutarra from Katghora, on the way he saw one pick-up vehicle, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed one person coming on motorcycle from opposite direction and ran away towards Bilaspur. He had seen the number of that vehicle. After some time when he reached Sutarra Barrier, he saw that very same vehicle. After about one year of accident, when he met with injured-claimant, he disclosed him about the pick-up vehicle and also told him its registration number after seeing from register of Barrier. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that his statement was recorded by police after one year of accident, he cannot tell reason for not visiting police station for a period of one year; he did not disclose the police that he has told the registration number of vehicle to injured claimant after taking out the same from 8 register of barrier in which registration number of vehicle causing accident was mentioned. 14. From perusal of the statement of this witness (AW-2) it is clear that this witness did not know claimant at the time of accident. He has surfaced long time after the accident. After witnessing the alleged accident, this witness neither accompanied the injured to the hospital nor has informed the police about the same. However, as a bolt from blue, after a gap of one year, he met with claimant and then he chose to give his statement to police. This witness has not offered any explanation as to why he has not immediately informed the police that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle and as to why he kept mum for such a long period without any reasonable reason. This highly unusual conduct of alleged eyewitness of accident create doubts about his testimony and thus does not inspire confidence of this Court that he had witnessed the accident or aware about the registration number of the vehicle. 15. As regards the alleged admission of owner of offending vehicle, the driver and owner of offending vehicle did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and nor filed their written statement and therefore they were declared ex-parte. There is one letter exhibited as Ex.P-7, which is written by the owner of offending vehicle to the Station House Incharge Katghora, and this letter only certifies that on the date of accident, non- 9 applicant No.1-driver was driving the offending vehicle and there is no mention of such admission of accident as is claimed by learned counsel for appellants. Hence, alleged oral admission of owner of offending vehicle to PW-4 during investigation of the criminal case, which is not corroborated by any admissible piece of evidence, cannot be relied upon as sufficient proof to hold that offending vehicle was involved in the accident in question, more so, when the facts of the case coupled with testimonies of alleged eyewitness does not inspire confidence of the Court with respect to identity of the vehicle that has caused accident as a result of which claimant suffered injuries including amputation of his right leg. 16. 16. As far as the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for appellant in support of his submissions is concerned, the facts of the case of Saroj (supra), there was specific pleading of owner in the written statement regarding involvement of his vehicle in the accident, whereas in the case at hand the owner of alleged offending vehicle did not chose to file written statement or to get himself examined before the Claims Tribunal to get recorded his admission regarding involvement of his vehicle in accident in question. Hence, this decision is of no help to the appellant. 17. As regards the reliance on the case of Ranjeet (supra), in this case the issue under consideration was ‘negligence’ and not the proof of involvement of vehicle. Hence, the same is 10 also of no help to the learned counsel for the appellants being distinguishable on facts. 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no reason to differ with the well reasoned award passed by the Claims Tribunal which appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence and material placed on record by respective parties and the same is accordingly upheld. 19. The appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI