Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-2049-2024 2025:CGHC:43356 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2049 of 2024 [Arising out of award dt. 23.08.2023, passed in Claim Case no.144 of 2022 (Smt. Manjali Poyam and others v. Rajendra Baghel and others) by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG)] Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, E-8, Riicoi, Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through-Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Height, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) -----(Insurer) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Manjali Poyam W/o Late Ramsingh Poyam, Aged About 30 Years R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S.-Kodenar, District-Baster (C.G.) ----- (Claimant) 2 - Ku. Shilpa D/o Late Ramsingh, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manjali Poyam, R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S.-Kodenar, District-Baster (C.G.) -----(Claimant) 3 - Rubendra Singh Poyam S/o Late Ramsingh Poyam, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manjali Poyam, R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S.-Kodenar, District-Baster (C.G.) -----(Claimant) 4 - Ku. Khemeshwari D/o Late Ramsingh, Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manjali Poyam, R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S.-Kodenar, District-Baster (C.G.) -----(Claimant) 5 - Mangal Poyami S/o Gado Poyami, Aged About 48 Years R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S.-Kodenar, District-Baster (C.G.) -----(Claimant) 6 - Smt. Durlo W/o Mangal Poyami, Aged About 49 Years R/o Patelpara, Barupata, P.S.-Kodenar, District-Baster (C.G.) -----(Claimant) 7 - Rajendra Baghel S/o Heerasingh Baghel, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village-Kookanar, Thothapara, P.S.-Kookanar, District-Sukma (C.G.) ---- (Driver) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-2049-2024 8 - Mangalram Kashyap S/o Budhram Kashyap, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Loharapara, Alwa, P.S.-Kodenar, District-Bastar (C.G.) ---- (Owner) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1-6 : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 26.08.2025 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 dt. 23.08.2023, passed in Claim Case no.144 of 2022 (Smt. Manjali Poyam and others v. Rajendra Baghel and others) by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01- 06/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,84,400/- has been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 9% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization on account of death of Ram Singh Poyam in the accident occurred on 13.11.2021, 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 13.11.2021, whereas FIR to that effect was lodged on 04.05.2022 and, as such, the Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-2049-2024 involvement of the vehicle in question 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 police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. **** **** **** **** 1 (2011) 4 SCC 493 Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-2049-2024 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. bearing No.CG-18-D-0297 was involved in the accident on the date of occurrence and, due to which, deceased- Ram Singh Poyam died. 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. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if