[2025:RJ-JP:40987] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3492/2019 Pappu Khan S/o Munna Khan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o G.T. Road, Sagar Pada, Dholpur District Dholpur (Rajasthan) ----Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through Zonal Manager, Zonal Office Dream Building In Front Of Government Child Hospital Near Power House Chowraha, Alwar Rajasthan 2. Akbar Ali S/o Shorab Khan, R/o Bataupura, PS Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) ----Non-claimant/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 06/10/2025 1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 04.05.2019 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur in Claim Case No. 218/2017 whereby he rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant. 2. The facts borne out of the appeal are that the claimant/appellant preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur against the non- claimants/respondents for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor accident. The claimant has averred that on 22.01.2017 in midnight at 12 O’Clock, when the appellant alongwith his two friends were going to his home from [2025:RJ-JP:40987] (2 of 4) [CMA-3492/2019] Sagar Pada on foot at roadside, a motorcycle bearing its registration no. RJ-11/SH-5922 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the appellant at his back due to which the appellant got severely injured. 3. The learned Tribunal after registering the claim petition issued notices to the non-claimants who put their appearance, controverted the averments, and prayed for the dismissal of the same. The learned Tribunal framed four issues including the issue of relief out of the pleadings of the parties. Thereafter, both the parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings. 4. The learned Tribunal passed the award dated 04.05.2019 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant appellant came to be dismissed. 5. The counsel for claimant/appellant submits that the claim petition has been dismissed without finding the offending vehicle involved in the accident even when the Investigating Agency submitted chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the appellant specifically explained the delay in lodging the FIR in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgement in the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan, however, the petition was still dismissed on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned award dated 04.05.2019 is liable to be set aside, provided that a strict law of evidence is not applicable in the cases of motor accident and the same may be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. [2025:RJ-JP:40987] (3 of 4) [CMA-3492/2019] 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 7. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and the facts on record, the Court has to examine whether there is a need to interfere with the learned Tribunal’s decision which dismissed the claim petition on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vellu and Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32138/2018, decided on 12.12.2024 observed that although a mere delay in lodging an FIR would not be a ground to reject a motor accident compensation claim, it gains relevance in cases where other evidence does not support the claimant's allegations. 9. In the present case, the counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted before the learned Tribunal that the victim got discharged from the hospital on 01.02.2017, thus, there is no explanation for filing the complaint petition on 26.04.2017. Moreover, the driver of the vehicle is a friend of the applicant and the claim petition was thus, filed in collusion with the owner of the vehicle. 10. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the cases of Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors. 2011 DNJ 227 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal if the claimant demonstrates satisfactory and cogent reasons for it and Shabber Khan v. Gaurav Sharma & Anr. 2014 (1) CCR 293 (Raj.) wherein this Court observed that if the claimant [2025:RJ-JP:40987] (4 of 4) [CMA-3492/2019] knew about the number of car, he is expected to give information to the police while recording the statement, and the delay is a fatal one if the explanation given by the claimant is unacceptable. It was observed that in the case at hand, no witnesses explained satisfactorily the reasons for delay. The delay thus, is a fatal one as the accident occurred on 22.01.2017 whereas the complaint petition was filed on 26.04.2017 though the application was filed to the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur on 22.04.2017. 11. In the backdrop of the above legal position, discussions made and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this appeal, the Court is of the view that no sufficient explanation has been put on record by the claimant/appellant to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. No information was given to police till 22.04.2017, that is till three months after the accident. No other cogent evidence has been produced with regards to the same. 12. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant. 13. Accordingly, the award dated 04.05.2019 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur in Claim Case No. 218/2017 is affirmed and the present appeal stands dismissed. 14. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /59