1 2025:CGHC:54131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1088 of 2023 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Branch-Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sukhram S/o Nohar Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bijalpur, Ps Bemetara, Teh And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 2 - Smt. Kuvariya Bai W/o Sukhram Nishad Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bijalpur, Ps Bemetara, Teh And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3 - Kamlesh Sahu S/o Kejau Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bijalpur, Ps Bemetara, Teh And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Cg/07/aj/7090) 4 - Sharda Bai W/o Late Dhruw Kumar Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Balak High School Road, Near Chakradhari HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.07 11:25:49 +0530 2 Nivas, Bemetara, Ps, Teh Dist- Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Legal Heirs Of Owner Of Motorcycle Bearing No. Cg/07/a/0952) 5 - Omkar Prasad Verma S/o Late Dhruw Kumar Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Balak High School Road, Near Chakradhari Nivas, Bemetara, Ps, Teh Dist- Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Legal Heirs Of Owner Of Motorcycle Bearing No. Cg/07/a/0952) 6 - Satyendra Verma S/o Late Dhruw Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Balak High School Road, Near Chakradhari Nivas, Bemetara, Ps, Teh Dist- Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Legal Heirs Of Owner Of Motorcycle Bearing No. Cg/07/a/0952) 7 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch-Infront Of New Bus Stand, Bemetara, Dist. Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Srishti Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 to 6 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 3 06.11.2025 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 10/04/2023 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No. 166/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 11,17,600/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Chumman Nishad, aged about 18 years, who worked as unskilled labourer, and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Appellant/Insurance 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 19/12/2018 whereas the FIR was lodged on 29/01/2019, 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 19/12/2018 and FIR was lodged on 29/01/2019, 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. Thus, 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 Harneet