1 2025:CGHC:53363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1290 of 2023 Branch Manager, Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited, Link Road, Ground Floor, Kirti Complex, Rajendra Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattigarh. (Insurance Company) ... Appellant versus 1 - Santosh Kumar, S/o. Late Sevaram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o. Village Semarsal, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Lalti Bai Pandey, Wife Of Santosh Kumar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o. Village Semarsal, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bodhan Pandey, Son Of Santosh Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Village Semarsal, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Lormi District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tukeshwar Pandey, Son Of Santosh Kumar, Aged About 23 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.11.03 11:08:26 +0530 2 Years, R/o. Village Semarsal, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ……….(Claimants) 5 - Baldau Sahu, Son Of Ful Singh Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Dakurikapa, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Non -Applicant No. 1) 6 - Moti Ram Dewangan, Son Of Sughau Ram Dewangan, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Semarchunva, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Non -Applicant No. 2) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.5 & 6 : Ms. Sakshi Singh Thakur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 31.10.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 29.03.2023 passed by the learned Fourth 3 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 908/2019, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the compensation amount of Rs.13,59,968/- along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 2. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company, would firstly submit that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the driver and the insured offending vehicle has falsely been implicated in the accident in question. She would secondly submit that the deceased was also contributory negligent, therefore, half of the compensation amount be deducted towards contributory negligence. She would again submit that the two brothers of the deceased were also granted compensation towards loss of consortium, which sould not have been granted. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is perverse, which is liable to be set aside and the appellant/ insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 3. Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondent No.1 to 4 and Ms. Sakshi Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 & 6 (driver & owner) would 4 support the impugned award and submit that the liability to pay compensation has rightly been fastened upon the insurance company and, as such, the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is true that there is delay in lodging the FIR, as the FIR was lodged on 20.06.2019 and the incident was occurred on 28.05.2019; however, mere delay in lodging the FIR could not be a ground to reject the claimants application, as per the law laid down in Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Others1. Furthermore, after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed vide Ex.P-8 against the driver of the offending vehicle Baldau Sahu for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and, therefore, the ground of false implication of the insured offending vehicle and the driver has not been established. 6. The next plea of the appellant/insurance company that the deceased was also contributory negligent, therefore, half of the awarded amount be deducted towards contributory 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 5 negligence. However, a careful perusal of the written statement would show that the insurance company has taken plea of contributory negligence at para 8, but in order to prove the contributory negligent no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the insurance company. However, the reliance has been placed upon the statement of claimants’ eye-witness Tukeshwar Pandey who has clearly stated that the deceased was driving the vehicle slowly in his side and the driver of the offending vehicle while driving the vehicle on wrong side dashed the deceased, by which he has suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, the plea of contributory negligent has also not been established. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge