1 MAC No. 1276 of 2022 2025:CGHC:55662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1276 of 2022  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager, 2nd Floor, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Tahsil & District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1.Smt. Suman Kurrey W/o Late Ramkumar Kurrey Aged About 34 Years; 2.Ku. Ritu Kurrey D/o Late Ramkumar Kurrey Aged About 15 Years; 3.Raja Kurrey S/o Late Ramkumar Kurrey Aged About 12 Years 4.Shivcharan Kurrey S/o Late Mittu Lal Kurrey Aged About 65 Years; Respondents NO.2 & 3 are minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Suman Kurrey. All respondents are R/o Village Podi Salka, Police Station Kota, Tahsil Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants). 5.Smt. Mati Bai (Deleted) As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03/09/2025 And 08/10/2025. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.11.17 11:25:59 +0530 2 MAC No. 1276 of 2022 6.Rajaram Sonwani S/o Rahasram Sonwani Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Gunsari Satnami Mohalla, Police Station Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver) ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Raj Awashti, Advocate. For Respondents :- None for the respondents. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.11.2025 1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 22.07.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 300/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application and awarded a sum of 19,04,540/- ₹ as compensation along with interest to the claimants by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. 3 MAC No. 1276 of 2022 2.Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that the accident occurred on 12.09.2020 and the FIR was registered on 08.02.2020 with a delay and therefore, false case has been registered by the claimants and also deceased himself was negligent, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 3.None for the respondents, though served. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions made herein-above and gone through the records precisely. 5.True it is that the accident occurred on 12.09.2020 and the FIR was registered on 08.02.2020, thereafter, culminating in the charge-sheet vide Ex.P/1, as such, delay has occurred in lodging the FIR. However, It is well settled law that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt on the claimant’s case or to dismiss claim petition in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the 4 MAC No. 1276 of 2022 matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others 1 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held 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. 18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 5 MAC No. 1276 of 2022 persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. 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 the aforesaid legal position, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground for dismissing the claim case. Furthermore, there is an eye witness to the accident Anil Kurre (AW-2) who has supported the case of the 6 MAC No. 1276 of 2022 claimant by stating that it is the driver of the offending vehicle who negligently dashed the motorcycle of deceased Ram Kumar by which he suffered injuries and died and even with regard to plea of self negligence of the deceased no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company. 7.In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I do not find any merit in present appeal, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit