1 2025:CGHC:55659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1583 of 2023 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Jagdalpur, Branch Office, M/s Laxman Avenue, Medical College Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Narhari Kokdu S/o Late Nawa Kokdu, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Markel, By Caste Halba, R/o Village Markel, Khaspara, P.O. Markel, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Madai W/o Narhari Kokdu, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Markel, By Caste Halba, R/o Village Markel, Khaspara, P.O. Markel, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhuvneshwari Kokdu D/o Narhari Kokdu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Markel, By Caste Halba, R/o Village Markel, Khaspara, P.O. Markel, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.17 12:10:12 +0530 2 4 - Bhagirathi Sardul S/o Narhari Kokdu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Markel, By Caste Halba, R/o Village Markel, Khaspara, P.O. Markel, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Devenshu Rangwani, S/o Shri Hardayal Rangwani, Aged About 23 Years R/o M.I.G. -07, G.F. Sai Mandir, Near Housin Colony, Chhatrapati Shivaji Ward No. 35, Aghanpur, Dharampura, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Dharampura, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle ) (Non-Applicant No. 1) 6 - Shri Hardayal Rangwani S/o Shri Hemandas Rangwani, Aged About 49 Years R/o M.I.G. 07, G.F. Sai Mandir, Near Housing Colony, Chhatrapati Shivaji Ward No. 35, Aghanpur, Dharampura, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Oner Of Offending Vehicle) Non Applicant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents No. 1 - 4: Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 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 27/06/2023 passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 35/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,69,800/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurnace Company). 2. 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 26/11/2018 whereas the FIR was lodged on 06/02/2019 and the vehicle was seized on 10/02/2019, therefore, 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. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the impugned award does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. True it is that accident occurred on 26/11/2018 and FIR was lodged on 06/02/2019, but only on the ground of delay in lodging FIR, the claim case of the claimants cannot be thrown out. 6. 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 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.” 7. 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 1 AIR 2011 1228 5 subsequently culminated into charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle for offence under Section 304A of IPC (Ex. A/1). Thus, mere delay in filing FIR would not absolve the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation and 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 this appeal. 8. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneets