Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-1342-2022 2025:CGHC:38780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1342 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 25.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.754/2019 (Smt. Malti Sahu and others v. Brijesh Kumar Gupta and others) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)] United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Having Office At Second Floor, Gurukrupa Towers, Vyapar Vihar, In Front Of Amber Automobiles, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G) Also Having Office At 1st Floor, Lic Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Malti Sahu Wd/o Late Sadaram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Sargaon, Mungeli Presently Residing At Village Ameri, Post Mangla, P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Daya Prasad Sahu S/o Late Sadaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Sargaon, Mungeli Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Village Ameri, Post Mangla, P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rameshwar Sahu S/o Late Sadaram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Sargaon, Mungeli Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Village Ameri, Post Mangla, P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur 4 - Tikeswari Sahu D/o Late Sadaram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Sargaon, Mungeli Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Village Ameri, Post Mangla, P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur 5 - Khileswari Sahu D/o Late Sadaram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Sargaon, Mungeli Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Village Ameri, Post Mangla, P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur 6 - Brijesh Kumar Gupta S/o Ramanuj Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o A/03 New Colony, Pairaghat, Post Jhimar Colony, Bhalmudi, Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh Presently Residing At Old Bus Stand Karbala Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Driver), Chhattisgarh SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-1342-2022 7 - Kamal Prasad Banjare S/o Krishna Prasad Banjare Aged About 36 Years Residing Of Khairjhiti (Kanchanpur), Post Lauda, P.S. And Tehsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (Owner), Chhattisgarh 8 - Vinod Kumar Rajput S/o Shri R.S. Rajput Aged About 40 Years R/o Lig-40, Sector-1, Deendayal Colony, Mangala, P.S. Mangla, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (Insurer Owner), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate appeared through Video Conferencing For Respondents 1 - 5 : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 05.08.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 25.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.754/2019 (Smt. Malti Sahu and others v. Brijesh Kumar Gupta and others) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01 to 05/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.13,49,577/- has been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 9% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization on account of death of Sadaram Sahu, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant- Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that in the present case accident occurred on 24.04.2017, Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-1342-2022 whereas FIR to that effect was lodged on 02.04.2018 and, as such, the involvement of the vehicle in question i.e. Motor-cycle bearing No.CG- 10-EP-4651 is doubtful. Therefore, the learned MACT has erred in law while fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Insurance Company. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others 1 , whereby their Lordships have clearly held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case and observed in Para-17 & 19 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 1 (2011) 4 SCC 493 Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-1342-2022 police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. **** **** **** **** 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.” 6. In view of above settled legal position, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be taken as a ground to reject the claimant’s case more particularly when the learned MACT after full-fledged trial has found that the vehicle in question i.e. Motor-cycle bearing No.CG-10-EP-4651 was found involved in the accident on the date of occurrence. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT while exercising jurisdiction under Section 173 of the MV Act. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. s@if sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge