1 2025:CGHC:36182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 596 of 2021 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through - Divisional Manager, Branch Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Insurance Company, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - (Died And Deleted) Smt. Sunaina Singh Rajput As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-08-2024, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pradeep Rajput S/o Late Gulab Singh Rajput Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 8, Ward No.-1, Mugeri Nawagaon, Thana/thesil- Dongargaon, District - Rajnadgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Madhu Singh Rajput D/o Late Gulab Singh Rajput, Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 8, Ward No.-1, Mugeri Nawagaon, Thana/thesil- Dongargaon, District - Rajnadgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhaganlal Netam S/o Late Vinod Kumar Netam, Aged About 36 Years R/o Manpur, Thana - Manpur, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jaswinder Singh S/o Narendra Singh Bal R/o Lalbagh Housing Board Colony Rajnandgaon C/o Jagirdar Travels, Old Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : None SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 25/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company challenging impugned award dated 28.07.2021 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 181/2017 whereby, learned Claims Tribunal allowed application in part and awarded Rs. 8,64,500/- as compensation to the Respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Claimants/Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 89,90,000/- on the ground that on 29.06.2017 when Bhupendra Singh Rajput (since deceased) was traveling in Bus bearing registration no. CG 08 M 0389 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) and reached near a bridge at Mohar, it stopped for de-boarding the passengers. When Bhupendra Singh was de-boarding from bus, Respondent No. 4 run the bus, due to which, Bhupendra Singh fell down and sustained grievous injury on his head. He was taken to hospital for treatment, from there to Medical College Rajnandgaon and thereafter, to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, Bhilai where during course of treatment, he died. Subsequent to the said accident, F.I.R. was registered against the Respondent No. 4 bearing Crime No. 360/2017 P.S. Dongargaon, District – Rajnandgaon for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted reply to the claim application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that on the 3 date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 and therefore, Non-Applicant No. 3 is liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 4. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted reply denying the adverse pleadings made therein and pleaded that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. Claimants/applicants are not dependent upon the deceased as there are other earning family members. It was further pleaded that the Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. There was no permit and fitness of the offending vehicle, as such there was breach of policy conditions and therefore, Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, dismissed the claim application recording a finding that, the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by Non-Applicant No. 1 and awarded Rs. 8,64,500/- as compensation to the claimants fastening liability upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance company to satisfy the award. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the claim application filed by claimants overlooking the fact that F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of about 2 ½ months which makes the claim application fo the claimants suspicious. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 5 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for appellant and would submit that the owner and driver have submitted reply to the claim application and denied the fact of accident. However, Claims Tribunal 4 upon appreciation of facts arrived at a conclusion that the deceased, while de-boarding the bus, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver suffered grievous injuries and later on, died of the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 9. Perusal of the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that claimants in their claim application have clearly mentioned that on the date of accident, deceased was traveling on bus bearing registration no. CG 08 M 0389. After stopping of bus near Mohar, when deceased Bhupendra Singh Rajput was de-boarding from bus, driver of the bus (Non-applicant No. 1) negligently drove the it, in which, Bhupendra Singh suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital for treatment and during the course of treatment, he died on 30.06.2017. The morgue was reported to the concerned police station on 18.07.2017 filed as Ex. P/2. Perusal of the document of morgue intimation would show that cause of death is mentioned as motor vehicular accident. In Ex. P/9 i.e. also the information of death from Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, it is mentioned as motor vehicular accident. To prove, accident and death due to motor-accidental injuries, claimants have examined Claimant No. 1, Sunaina Singh Rajput as AW – 1. In her evidence-in-chief, she stated according to the pleading made in claim application. 10.Submission of counsel for the appellant is that claim case filed is suspicious because, report of accident was lodged after more than 2 ½ months of accident, which this Court is not intending to accept, because, merely delay in lodging of F.I.R. would not be fatal for the 5 claimants to succeed in claim case. For not lodging the F.I.R. immediately may be for many reasons. Firstly, after the accident, the deceased was taken to hospital for treatment and he died during the course of treatment. It is for the concerned hospital to intimate the concerned police station about the death due to motor-accidental injuries. The claimants who lost their family member may be in grief for a certain period. They took time in performing last rituals. 11.Perusal of morgue intimation would show that accident is of 29.06.2017, death of the deceased during the course of treatment was on 30.06.2017. However, the information was given by the hospital only on 18.07.2017. The police after receipt of the information, conducted morgue inquiry and only thereafter, report was registered as crime. 12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) SCC 693 has considered the issue with regard to delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and held 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 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.” 13.In the case at hand, immediately after the accident, the deceased was taken to hospital where, it was intimated that the deceased suffered motor-accidental injuries which is appearing from the morgue intimation 6 Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3. In reply, Appellant/Insurance Company has not taken specific plea of false implication of the vehicle and false, fabricated case cooked up by the claimants. No evidence is led by the Insurance Company even after giving an opportunity and closed its right to lead evidence. On 14.01.2021, the Appellant/Insurance Company thereafter, submitted an application under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to call for a persons named therein as witnesses. The said application was dismissed on 23.02.2021 by the Claims Tribunal observing that right to lead evidence has already been closed on 14.01.2021. Order rejecting an application or closing the right to lead evidence has not been challenged by the Appellant/Insurance Company during pendency of the claim case. Claim case was finally decided on 22.07.2021 after about more than 06 months from closing of the right to lead evidence and after 03 months from the date of rejecting of their application. 14.In the aforementioned facts of the case, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, finding recorded by Claims Tribunal allowing application filed by the claimants/applicants and fastening liability upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company cannot be said to be erroneous. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 15.Accordingly, this appeal being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey