1 2025:CGHC:44530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1318 of 2024 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Chhattisgarh Plaza, Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.),...(Non-Applicant No. 2) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Jagannath Prasad Sahu S/o Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Khudubhata, Jairamnagar, Currently Residing At Pamgarh, Thana And Tehsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.),...(Claimants) 2 - Kamini Sahu W/o Jagannath Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Khudubhata, Jairamnagar, Currently Residing At Pamgarh, Thana And Tehsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Rajesh Kumar Markam S/o Late Amol Markam Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bhoghapara Shivrinarayan, Thana Shivrinaryan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.),... (Driver / Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 21/08/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the liability to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,57,676/- fastened upon it by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 18.03.2024 in Claim Case No. 02/2023. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 02.02.2022, when Komal Kumar Sahu (since deceased) was traveling towards Raipur and reached near Pataidih, Pachpedi at that time, one car i.e. Scorpio bearing registration no. CG 11 E 1766 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the offending vehicle) driven rashly and negligently by the Non- Applicant No. 1, dashed him, due to which, Komal Kumar Sahu suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital for treatment, where during course of treatment, he died. Subsequent to the said accident, F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 28/2022 P.S. Pachpedi, District Bilaspur was registered against the Non-Applicant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The claimants have filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 33,10,000/- along with an interest of 9% per annum stating that the deceased aged about 20 years was a student and doing the work of Gym Trainer and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed on two grounds firstly, on the ground that there was no valid and effective driving license with the Non-applicant No. 1/Driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and secondly, that there was delay of 24 days in lodging of the F.I.R. which was not appropriately considered by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. To appreciate the first ground raised by the counsel for the appellant, I have perused records of the claim case. 5. The Appellant/Insurance Company in their evidence have only proved the insurance policy (Ex. D/1). No other document is proved by them 3 before the learned Claims Tribunal. Perusal of the reply would show that they have taken the plea that on the date of accident, Non- applicant No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving license, however, no evidence in this regard has been brought on record. The burden to prove the plea raised in the reply was upon the insurance company in which, it utterly failed. Property seizure memo forming part of the charge-sheet is also placed on record by the claimants to support their case as Ex. P/6. In the property seizure memo, police while seizing the offending vehicle, RC Book, Insurance Policy have also seized copy of the driving license. 6. From the aforementioned facts of the case, in particular, the seizure memo, it is appearing that the copy of the driving license was forming part in the record of the criminal case, however, the Appellant/Insurance Company has not submitted, particulars of the license after obtaining from the competent authority i.e. the licensing authority and therefore, from the facts and evidence available in the record of the claim case, it is apparent that the Appellant/Insurance Company failed to prove the defence taken, that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. 7. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal while dealing with the issue framed on the basis of reply submitted by the Appellant/Insurance Company that whether the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions has discussed the same in para 19 & 20 and have decided the Issue No. 2 as not proved. In para 21, Claims Tribunal has held that the Insurance company failed to prove that on the date of accident, Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving 4 license which in the facts of the case cannot be said to be erroneous finding, but it appears that it is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Hence, there is no merit in the first ground raised by the counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company. Accordingly, it is repelled. 8. So far as the second ground raised by the counsel for appellant that the F.I.R. was lodged with delay of 24 days is concerned, claim is filed by the unfortunate parents who have lost their major son aged about 20 years. From the description of the claimants, it appears that after death, they have performed last rituals of their deceased son and thereafter, they may have been in grief for some period also and therefore, delay of only 24 days cannot be treated to be an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 while considering the issue of delay in lodging of F.I.R. has observed thus:- “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. x x x x 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 5 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.” 10.Considering entirety of the facts of the case, evidence available on record and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi (Supra), in the opinion of this Court, delay of 24 days will not make the case of the claimants suspicious and therefore, it will not come on the way of the claimants in seeking compensation against the death of their son. For the foregoing discussion, the said ground raised by counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company is also not having substance. Accordingly, it is repelled. 11.For the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey