1 MAC No. 1148 of 2022 2025:CGHC:43037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1148 of 2022 1. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office – Above Bandhan Bank, Niharika Kosabadi Main Road, Tahsil and District – Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Non- Applicant No.3). ... Appellant versus 1. Jyoti Rathore Wd/o Late Shri Virendra Rathore, Aged About 26 Years; 2. Minor Subhi Rathore S/o Late Shri Virendra Rathore, Aged About 5 Years; 3. Sarla Devi Rathore Wd/o Late Chain Singh Rathore, Aged About 56 Years; No.2 is minor, through natural guardian mother Smt. Jyoti Rathore. All R/o Village Raliya, Outpost Hardibazar, Tahsil Pali, District – Korba, Chattisgarh. …. (Claimants) 4. Raju Sahu S/o Late Shyam Lal Sahu R/o Village Lavan, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.), Presently Residing at Aara Machine, Azad Chowk, Korba, Tahsil and District – Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.1). ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.26 17:03:33 +0530 2 MAC No. 1148 of 2022 5. Pradeep Thapa S/o Rajendra Thapa, R/o Rampur Housing Board Colony, Block No.3, Tahsil and District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o 137 Dussehra Ground, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh Pin – 456010. (Non-Applicant No.2). ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 :- Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 25.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 19.07.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.17/2020 by which the application of the claimants for grant of compensation has been allowed and 1,31,46,318/- ₹ along with interest has been awarded to the claimants/dependents of deceased Virendra Rathore by 3 MAC No. 1148 of 2022 fastening the liability upon the appellant herein/Insurance Company. 2. Mr. G.V.K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting compensation to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. He would also submit that the accident is said to have occurred on 27.12.2019 and the FIR was registered on 20.02.2020, as such, there is delay of about two months, which has not been explained by the claimants and no reason has been assigned for not reporting the matter right in time though there is an eye witness to the accident i.e. Sunil Yadav (AW-2), therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed while dismissing the impugned award. 3. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, would support the impugned award and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel for respondent No.4, would submit that respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation amount to the claimants. 4 MAC No. 1148 of 2022 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. The only ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident had taken place on 27.12.2019 of which the FIR was registered on 20.02.2020 and the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the claimants and it is a case of unidentified vehicle who dashed the vehicle of deceased Virendra Rathore, by which accident has occurred and he suffered grievous injuries and during treatment he died. However, the Claims Tribunal has relied upon the testimony of eye witness Sunil Yadav (AW-2) and clearly came to the conclusion that it is offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 12 Y 2551 driven by respondent No.4 herein, owned by respondent No.5 herein and insured with the appellant herein who dashed the vehicle of deceased Virendra Rathore, by which he met with the accident and suffered grievous injuries and during treatment he died, which in my considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and the same is 5 MAC No. 1148 of 2022 neither perverse nor contrary to the records and I affirm the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. 7. 7. With regard to delay in lodging the FIR, the Supreme Court has held in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others 1 that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim and observed 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 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. 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 6 MAC No. 1148 of 2022 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, I do not find any infirmity warranting interference in the impugned award, accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit