[2026:RJ-JP:5937] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 111/2020 Khawaju Khan S/o Jumma Khan, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Dara Mata Ji, Indragarh, Distt. Bundi (Raj) ----Appellant Versus 1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Top Circle, Bundi Distt. Bundi (Raj) (Insurer Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sl-7076) 2. Niraj Kumar Jangid S/o Ramswaroop Jangid, B/c Jangid,r/o Khajura, Tehsil Nainwa, Distt. Bundi (Raj) (Driver Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sl-7076) 3. Ram Rai Jangid S/o Ladu Lal, B/c Jangid, R/o Bosariya Tehsil Uniyara,distt. Tonk (Raj) (Owner Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sl-7076) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/02/2026 1. By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Motor Ac- cident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Bundi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 421/2017 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (for short, ‘claimant’) has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the claimant submits that on 25.04.2017 the claimant was walking back from Bad Chauraha to his home in Dara Mataji when a motor bike bearing No. RJ26-SL-7076, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 2, [2026:RJ-JP:5937] (2 of 5) [CMA-111/2020] struck the claimant causing an accident wherein the claimant suf- fered a fracture on his left leg. Counsel submits that the claimant remained hospitalized till 30.04.2017 and after discharge from the hospital, the FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 01.05.2017. Counsel submits that the claimant submitted a claim petition against the respondents seeking suitable amount of enhancement, however, the same was rejected by the Tribunal on two technical points - (i) Delay in lodging the FIR and; (ii) in the medical docu- ments the word “Road Traffic Accident” (RTA) was not mentioned. Counsel submits that on these technical counts, the claim petition seeking compensation cannot be rejected in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badri- narayan and Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SCC 1226. 3. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that the police had taken the claimant to the hospital on the day of the accident. Counsel submits that neither the claimant nor the Police had lodged the FIR of the al- leged incident on that day, hence under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim peti- tion submitted by the claimant and interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and pe- rused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that as per the FIR lodged by the claimant on 01.05.2017, the accident occurred on 25.04.2017 and it has been alleged in the FIR that on account of rash and [2026:RJ-JP:5937] (3 of 5) [CMA-111/2020] negligent driving of the motor bike, the accident had occurred and the claimant resultantly suffered multiple injuries and also frac- tured his leg. This fact is not in dispute that FIR was not regis- tered on the same day of accident and it was registered later on 01.05.2017 i.e. after a delay of six days from the date of the acci- dent. This fact is not in dispute that the claimant remained under treatment at the hospital w.e.f. 25.04.2017 till 30.04.2017 and thereafter, after being discharged from the hospital the FIR was registered on the next day i.e. on 01.05.2017. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Badrinarayan (supra) has taken a similar view in para Nos.17, 18, 19 and 20, which reads as under: “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a com- mon man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsi- bilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an ex- tent 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 me- chanically 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 exam- ine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If 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 dis- missed 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 factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensa- tion but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground [2026:RJ-JP:5937] (4 of 5) [CMA-111/2020] for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, al- though lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor acci- dent 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 rea- sons for it. There could be variety of reasons in gen- uine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility 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 as- sumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. 20. In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not appreci- ating the mental agony through which Suresh was passing, whose son was severely injured. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the MACT as well as High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim peti- tion.” 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has recorded an erroneous finding for rejecting the claim petition on the grounds that the medical papers of the claimant did not men- tion the word RTA. If the word RTA is not mentioned in the medical papers or discharge tickets of the claimant, that would not be fatal for such proceedings. Thus, in view of the discussions made here- inabove and looking to the proposition of law as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Badrinarayan (supra), the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set- aside. [2026:RJ-JP:5937] (5 of 5) [CMA-111/2020] 7. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for its adjudication on merits and on the issues framed therein, after providing due op- portunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.03.2026 and thereafter on the date fixed by the Tribunal. 9. Office is directed to return the summoned record to the Tri- bunal forthwith. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant civil misc. appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/43