1 / 6 2025:CGHC:33197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 435 of 2021 • Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Maruti Dealership G. E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/Non-applicant No. 2 versus 1. Smt Hema Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Nandkishore Sahu Aged About 35 Years 2. Ku. Akansha Sahu D/o Late Nandkishore Sahu Aged About 16 Years, Minor Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Sahu, Wd/o Late Shri Nandkishore Sahu, 3. Ku. Poonam Sahu D/o Late Nandkishore Sahu Aged About 14 Years, Minor Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Sahu, Wd/o Late Shri Nandkishore Sahu 4. Tikendra Sahu S/o Late Shri Nandkishore Sahu Aged About 12 Years, Minor Represented By Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Sahu, Wd/o Late Shri Nandkishore Sahu 5. Chandulal Sahu S/o Chamar Rai Aged About 64 Years 6. Smt. Jamuna Sahu W/o Chandulal Sahu Aged About 62 Years All are R/o Ward No. 6, Bhatapara, Kendri, Thana Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7. Abhay Kumar Sahu S/o Milan Sahu R/o House No. 67, Ayodhya Nagar, Near Sanskritik Bhawan, Behind Shiv Mandir, Thana D. D. Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ……...non-applicant No. 1-Driver & Owner ---Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/07/2025 1. Appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 25.02.2021 passed by Learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 531/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 16,49,500/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 22.03.2019 at about 9:00 pm in the night, Nandkishore Sahu while riding on his motorcycle bearing number CG04LY5830 was going to his native village Kendri from Raipur, when he reached near Shaddani Darbar, police station Mana Camp, a car coming from Abhanpur side bearing number CG04HC9766 (hereinafter referred to as “offending car”) driven by non- applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed Nandkishore Sahu and caused accident. In the said accident Nandkishore Sahu suffered fatal injuries and died on spot. Accident was reported to the police station Mana Camp based on which Crime No. 103/2019 was registered for alleged offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 6/ applicants-claimants, widow, children and parents of deceased- Nandkishore Sahu filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 29,70,000/- on the basis of pleadings made therein. 4. Respondent No. 7/ Non-applicant No. 1 -driver cum owner of the offending car filed reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was 3 / 6 further pleaded that the non-applicant No. 1 was not driving the offending car rashly and negligently. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, non- applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving licence, offending car was insured by non-applicant No. 2. 5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was driving the offending car in breach of policy conditions, he was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. There was delay in lodging of F.I.R. with regard of accident. There was contributory negligence on the part of deceased driver of motorcycle. The driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding were not made party to the proceedings, thus, the application to be not maintainable. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Nandkishore Sahu died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending car driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 16,49,500/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 2-Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance Company would submit that the appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal primarily on two grounds, first that the F.I.R. was lodged with delay and not lodged by the eye-witness. He submits that the offending car insured by appellant-insurance company has been implanted with ulterior motive. 4 / 6 8. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants would submit that for the grounds which are raised by the counsel for appellant-insurance company, no evidence has been brought on record. Merely lodging of F.I.R. with delay will not be fatal in the claim case seeking compensation against the death of breadwinner of the family. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant-Insurance company that there was one day delay in lodging F.I.R. is concerned, the pleading made in the claim application is that the accident was on 22.03.2019 at about 09:00 p.m. in night in which the deceased’s motorcycle was dashed with the offending car. Copy of F.I.R. is filed as Ext. P-4, it is lodged on 23.03.2019 at about 01:10, which means on next day in afternoon. F.I.R. was lodged by Pramod Sinha, Assistant Sub-Inspector, police station Mana Camp. The intimation about the accident and the death was forwarded to the police station on 23.03.2019 at about 12:10 a.m. ie., after few hours of the accident and copy of morgue intimation Ext. P-5 and based on the said information F.I.R. was registered after completion of proceedings. 11. From perusal of documents exhibited by the claimants in support of claim application, it is not reflecting that there is inordinate delay in lodging of F.I.R. Even if there is some delay in the cases where the deceased or the claimants suffered motor accidental injuries, it is for him or other person to take the injured or the dead body to the hospital and only thereafter other proceedings or formalities are to be completed. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 has observed thus: “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 5 / 6 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. x x x x 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the 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 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 a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity 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.” 13. For the foregoing discussion, the main ground raised by the counsel for appellant that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. which makes the case suspicious is not sustainable, accordingly it is repelled. 14. So far as the second ground raised by the counsel for appellant-insurance company with regard to implanting of offending car is concerned, claimants have examined Brahmanand Verma as AW-3 who is eye-witness to the accident. In his evidence, he categorically stated that he along with other friends were returning from Mandlor to Raipur, on the way he saw the offending car dashed the motorcycle coming from Raipur. He also stated the registration number of offending car. This witness was cross-examined by the counsel for non-applicants therein, however, his evidence in chief remained unshaken. 6 / 6 15. In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record, submission of learned counsel for appellant-insurance company that the offending car has been implanted with ulterior motive is also not sustainable accordingly it is repelled. 16. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn