1 2025:CGHC:59253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1578 of 2023 1 - Smt. Gayatri Bai Sen W/o Komal Singh Sen Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 2 - Isha Sen D/o Late Komal Singh Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Mukesh Kumar Sen S/o Late Komal Singh Sen Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Ragni D/o Komal Singh Sen Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellants/Claimants versus HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.06 12:55:27 +0530 2 1 - Devendra Kumar Kosare S/o Nakul Ram Kosare Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Tengan, Barpara, Ward No. 4, Sonaidongri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg 24 N 6613) 2 - Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Minor) S/o Mahajan Yadav R/o Village Tengan, Barpara, Ward No. 4, Sonaidongri, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg 24 N 6613) 3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Company Limited, Through Regional Office- Claim Manager Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Jeevan Bima Marg, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Local Address Claim Manager, Office Plot No. 2/7, Second Florr, Near Gandhi Chowk, Aakash Ganga Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg 24 N 6613 ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu and Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocates For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Srishti Upadhyay, Advocate 3 MAC No. 1929 of 2023 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Regional Office - Claim Manager Shivmohan Bhawan, Jeewan Beema Marg, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Local Address - Manager Claim, Plot No. 2/7, Second Floor, In Front Of Gandhi Chowk, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant/Insurance Company Versus 1 - Smt. Gaytree Bai Sen W/o Komal Singh Sen Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara P.S. And Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 2 - Isha Sen D/o Komal Singh Sen Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Her Mother Smt. Gaytree Bai Sen, R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara P.S. And Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Mukesh Kumar Sen S/o Komal Singh Sen Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Her Mother Smt. Gaytree Bai Sen, R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara P.S. And Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Ragini D/o Komal Singh Sen Aged About 15 Years Minor, Through Her Mother Smt. Gaytree Bai Sen, R/o Village Kaneri, Shantipara P.S. And Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 5 - Devendra Kumar Kosre S/o Nakul Ram Kosre Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Tengan Barpara Ward No. 4 Sondongri, P.S. And Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.),...(Driver) 6 - Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Mahajan Yadav (Minor), R/o Village Tengan Barpara Ward No. 4 Sondongri P.S. And Tehsil Gurur District Balod (C.G.),...(Owner) 4 --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Srishti Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 - 4 : Mr. C.R. Sahu and Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocates For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 05.12.2025 1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of common accident and since common question of law and fact is involved in both of these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. MAC/1578/2023 has been preferred by the claimants whereas MAC/1929/2023 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 22/07/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 114/2022 whereby compensation of Rs. 23,90,585/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upoon the Insurance Company. 5 3. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC/1578//2023, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% compensation amount towards contributory negligence when no such specific plea has been taken by the Insurance Company in their written statement and further no evidence has been led in this regard. He would further submit that under loss of consortiu, only Rs. 40,000/- has been granted by the Claims Tribunal whereas Rs. 1,60,000/- ought to have been granted, as such, the compensation amount may suitably be enhanced. 4. Ms. Sristhi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/1929/2023, would submit that accident occurred on 23/08/2021 and FIR was lodged against unknown vehicle on 27/11/2021 and thereafter, on 06/03/2022, charge-sheet was filed against the driver Devendra Kumar Kosare and the vehicle in question was falsely implicated, as such, Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6 6. So far as the plea of Insurance Company is concerned, true it is that there is delay in lodging FIR as the accident occurred on 23/08/2021 and FIR was lodged against unknown vehicle on 27/11/2021, however, on that ground alone, the claim of the claimants cannot be rejected. 7. 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.” 8. 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 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 1 AIR 2011 1228 7 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. 9. Now, so far as the claim of the claimants’ is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding in paragraph 11 of the impugned award that since accident occurred on account of head-on collision of two motorcycles, therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and proceeded to deduct 50% of the compensation amount towards contributory negligence. However, it appears from the written statement filed by the Insurance Company that no specific plea of contributory negligence has been taken by the Insurance Company and further no evidence has been led in this regard. In that view of the matter, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and the claimants are held entitled to full compensation amount of Rs. 47,81,170/- as earlier awarded by the Claim Tribunal prior to deducting 50% towards contributory negligence. Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- under loss of consortium whereas it ought to have awarded Rs. 1,60,000/-. Thus, the appellants are additionally held entitled to Rs. 25,10,585/- alongwith 6% 8 interest from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, MAC/1578/2023 filed by the claimants is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above whereas MAC/1929/2023 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneets