1 (MAC No. 1359 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:33364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1359 of 2022 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 10003, E-8 Epip, Riicoi, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through - Assistant Manager Having Office At Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh............Insurer --- Appellants) versus 1 - Smt. Hiraundi Bai Wd/o Narottam Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rahud, Police Station Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi District Balod, Chhattisgarh............Claimants. 2 - Bhupesh Sahu S/o Narottam Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Rahud, Police Station Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi District Balod, Chhattisgarh............Claimants. 3 - Deenu Sahu S/o Narottam Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Rahud, Police Station Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi District Balod, Chhattisgarh............Claimants. 4 - Bhupal Singh S/o Sadaram Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Rahud, Police Station Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi District Balod, Chhattisgarh............Claimants. 5 - Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Bhupal Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Rahud, Police Station Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi District Balod, Chhattisgarh............Claimants. 6 - Uttam Kumar Sahu S/o Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, Post Dhamna, Police Station Ranchirai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh..................Driver And Owner. --- Respondent(s) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.07.21 12:17:47 +0530 2 (MAC No. 1359 of 2022) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant(s) : Mr. P R Patankar. Advocate For RespondentNos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 16.07.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, District Balod in Claim Case No.108/2019, by which the Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim filed by the applicant/claimants holding that the vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1/ respondent No.6 herein and also owned by him and on the date of accident was duly insured and there was no violation of policy rules, against which this appeal has been preferred by the insurance company. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has made solitary submission that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, as such, the Claims tribunal ought not to have entertained the application for compensation and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3 (MAC No. 1359 of 2022) 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi Vs Badrinarayan and others 1 may be notice herein profitably in which their Lordships have clearly held that delay in lodging 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 FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian 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. 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 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 4 (MAC No. 1359 of 2022) 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 that view of the matter, the delay in lodging the FIR can not be a ground to reject the claimant’s case. As such, this appeal deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!