1 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 2025:CGHC:52655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 859 of 2022 1.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Maruti Heights, G. R. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant No. 3). --- Appellant versus 1.Smt. Sunita Thakur Wd/o Late Shri Lakshman Thakur, Aged About 34 Years; 2.Bhawana Thakur D/o Late Shri Lakshman Thakur, Aged About 14 Years; 3.Jaiprakash Thakur S/o Late Shri Lakshman Thakur, Aged About 9 Years; Both respondents No.2 & 3 are Minor Represented By Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Thakur, Wd/o Late Shri Lakshman Thakur, Aged About 34 Years; 4.Ganeshram Thakur S/o Late Shri Mardan Singh Thakur, Aged About 68 Years; All are R/o Village Amlideih, Thana And Tehsil Pithoura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimants). ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.10.30 14:46:56 +0530 2 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 5.Ajay Kumar S/o Krishnakumar Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Jhalap, Thana Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 6.Omprakash Kashyap S/o Ajay Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Surya Vihar, Pachpedi Nak,a Currently Residing at Village Chilpawan, Thana Patewa, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1-4 :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondents No.5 & 6:- Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. MAC No. 893 of 2022 1.Smt. Sunita Thakur W/o Late Laxman Thakur, Aged About 34 Years; 2.Bhavna Thakur D/o Late Laxman Thakur, Aged About 14 Years; 3.Jai Prakash Thakur S/o Late Laxman Thakur, Aged About 9 Years; Appellants No.2 & 3 are Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Thakur, W/o Late Laxman Thakur; 4.Ganesh Ram Thakur S/o Late Mardan Singh Thakur, Aged About 68 Years; All are R/o Village - Amlidih, Thana And Tahsil - Pithoura, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants Versus 3 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 1.Ajay Kumar S/o Krishna Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o - Ward No. 17 Jhalap, Thana - Pateva, District - Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 04/ H.K./6409). 2.Om Prakash Kashyap S/o Ajay Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 30 Years, R/o - Surya Bihar, Pachpedinaka Hall Mukam Village - Chhilpavan, Thana - Pateva, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 04/h.K./6409). 3.Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Maruti Height, G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 04/H.K./6409). --- Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2:- Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29.10.2025 1.Since the common question of law and facts are involved in the present two appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are now being disposed of by this common Order. 4 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 1.These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the Insurance Company (in MAC No.859/2022) as well as by the claimants (in MAC No.893/2022) challenging the impugned award dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 106/2019 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of 85,78,003/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for death of Laxman Thakur. 2.Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting compensation to the claimants as the accident has taken place on 18.06.2019 and the FIR was lodged on 12.07.2019 and, therefore, there is a delay in lodging the FIR and on account of which claimants’ case ought to have been thrown out and the compensation could not have been granted to them. 5 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 3.Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others 1 only on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case of the claimants could not be dismissed. He would also submit that under the head of spousal consortium funeral expenses and loss of estate less amount have been granted and also parental consortium and filial consortium have not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to enhanced and awarded. 4.Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel for owner and driver, would submit that owner and driver are not not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records meticulously. 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 6 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 6.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 matter of Ravi (supra) 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 7 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 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 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 8 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 7.In view of the aforesaid legal position, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground for dismissing the claim case. Even otherwise, in the instant case after lodging the FIR, case was investigated and the charge-sheet for offence under Section 304A of the IPC was filed against driver Ajay Kumar, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR would not be a ground to doubt the claimants’ case. As such, the claimants’ case has rightly been entertained and allowed by Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants. 8.However, the less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the heads of funeral expenses; loss of estate and spousal consortium to the widow which is liable to be enhanced and also under the heads of filial consortium to the children and parental consortium to the parent amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which in opinion of this Court is liable to be awarded. As such, after 9 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion to enhance amount under the head of funeral expenses to the tune of 3,000/-; 3,000/- under the head ₹ ₹ of loss of estate and 8,000/- under the head ₹ of spousal consortium to the widow. Further under the heads of filial consortium (two children) and parental consortium amount to the tune of 1,44,000/- is liable to be awarded, ₹ meaning thereby the total amount enhanced/awarded by this Court is 1,58,000/-. ₹ 9.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 85,78,003/- ₹ awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 87,36,003/- ₹ Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹85,78,003/- , the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹1,58,000/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation 10 MAC No. 859 of 2022 & MAC No. 893 of 2022 shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.859/2022 is dismissed and appeal filed by the claimants i.e. MAC No.893/2022 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit