1 2025:CGHC:59286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1686 of 2023 Branch Manager, United Indian Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Bramharoad, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Through - Branch Manager, The United Indian Insurance Company Limited, L I C Building, Magarpara, Road Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Company).c ... Appellant versus 1 - Matukdhari S/o Late Mangalsai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Darhora, Tahsil Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Indrakunwar W/o Matukdhari Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Darhora, Tahsil Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sita Tiwari W/o Late Ashok Kumar Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ketka, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, (Wife Of The Owner Of The Vehicle) ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.08 12:25:24 +0530 2 MAC No. 1684 of 2023 Branch Manager United Indian Insurance Comapny Limited, Branch Office, Bramharoad, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, Through Branch Manager, The United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Lic Building, Magarpara, Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Company). ---Appellant Versus 1 - Sitawati W/o Parivartan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Darhora, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sita Tiwari, W/o Late Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ketka, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Wife Of The Owner Of The Vehicle) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 (in both cases) : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 05.12.2025 1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of common accident and since common question of law and fact is involved in both of these cases, therefore, they have been 3 clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 14/06/2023 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Cases No. 56/2020 (Matukdhari and Anr. v. Branch Manager, United Indian Insurance Comapny Limited) and 60/2020 (Sitawati v. Branch Manager, United Indian Insurance Comapny Limited and Anr.) whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,77,200/- as compensation to the claimants in each of the cases and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident in question as there is also a delay in lodging FIR as the accident occurred on 22/12/2019 whereas the FIR was lodged on 23/05/2020 (Ex. P/2) and it was lodged by Matukdhari i.e. father of deceased Sus Kumar, however, he did not mention the vehicle number, therefore, the vehicle has falsely been 4 implicated and as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in granting compensation in favour of the claimants and fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would support the impugned award and submit that the impugned award does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. True it is that accident occurred on 22/12/2019 and FIR was lodged on 23/05/2020, but only on the ground of delay in lodging FIR, the claim case of the claimants cannot be thrown out. 7. In the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case and observed in paragraph 20 as under :- “20. 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 1 AIR 2011 1228 5 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.” 8. As such, in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ravi (supra), the ground of delay in lodging FIR cannot be a sole ground for rejecting claim application filed by the claimants also on the ground as it subsequently culminated into charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle for offence under Section 304A of IPC . Thus, mere delay in filing FIR would not absolve the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation and though another ground has been raised by the appellant (Insurance Company) that FIR was lodged by Matukdhari i.e. father of deceased Sus Kumar but as he di not mention the vehicle number, therefore, the vehicle has falsely been implicated but a careful perusal of the record would show that appellant (Insurance Company) have not led any evidence to substantiate the same, as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company. I do not find any merit in both of these appeals. 6 9. Accordingly, these appeals, being devoid of merits, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet