HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 197/2020 1. Smt. Kunti Devi W/o Late Shri Vedprakash, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 2. Pramod Kumar S/o Late Vedprakash, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 3. Dushyant Kumar S/o Late Vedprakash, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Vedprakash, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Bachhamadi, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Yatendra Kumar S/o Shri Gopal Prasad, R/o Village Painghor, Nagla Dadu, Tehsil Kumher District Bharatpur. (Driver Of Vehicle Car Rj-05-Ca-1787) 2. Amar Chand S/o Gurudutt, R/o Village Murbara, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Owner Of Vehicle Car Rj-05-Ca- 1787) 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Numayash Road, Bharatpur Through Branch Manager (Insurer) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/02/2026 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.601/16 (157/15), by which the claim petition submitted by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’) has been rejected on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. (2 of 5) [CMA-197/2020] 2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that when the deceased Vedprakash, after completing his duties was returning home on 23.12.2014, one vehicle/car bearing No.RJ-05-CA-1787 rammed him from behind and he died on the spot because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Counsel submits that the FIR of the aforesaid incident was registered on 01.01.2015, wherein charge-sheet was submitted against the Driver of the offending vehicle by the Investigating Agency and thereafter, the instant claim petition was submitted by the claimants for getting the amount of compensation from the respondents. Counsel submits that instead of deciding the claim petition on its merits and demerits, the same has been rejected on a technical count of delay i.e. 07 days delay in lodging the FIR with the concerned Police Station. Counsel submits that in such like matters, the claim cannot be rejected on this count alone. 3. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Kiran Singh Rajpurohit and Others vs. Suresh Rajpurohit and Others while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2549/2016. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the claimants and submits that when the incident has occurred on 23.12.2014, there was no reason or occasion available with the claimants or anyone to not to lodge the FIR in the instant case. (3 of 5) [CMA-197/2020] The FIR has been registered after seven days, for which no reasonable explanation has been given, hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim petition submitted by the claimants. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR was registered on 01.01.2015, wherein it was alleged that the deceased was returning to his village Bachhamadi from Nadbai from duty and when he reached opposite Jain Mandir Gaushala on NH-11, a Wagon-R car bearing No.RJ-05-CA-1787 hit him and he died on the spot. 7. After usual investigation of the aforesaid FIR, charge-sheet was submitted against the Driver of the offending vehicle before the Competent Court of law and thereafter, the aforesaid claim petition was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased in the aforesaid road accident. 8. It is settled proposition of law that the claim cannot be rejected on this technical count of slight delay in lodging the FIR. The claimants belong to a rural area and they were not aware about niceties of the law and more particularly in a situation when one of the close family member has passed away, therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR is quite natural without understanding the consequences of the same. Thus, on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, the claim is not liable to be rejected. (4 of 5) [CMA-197/2020] 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226 has taken a similar view in para Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23, which reads as under: “20. 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 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. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine 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 dismissed merely on that ground. 21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves 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 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 variety of reasons in genuine 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 assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. 22. In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not (5 of 5) [CMA-197/2020] appreciating the mental agony through which Suresh was passing, whose son was severely injured. 23. 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 petition.” 10. Thus, in view of the discussions made herein above and looking to the proposition of law as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinaryan and Ors. (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. 11. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for its adjudication on merits and on the issues framed therein, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.03.2026 and thereafter on the date fixed by the Tribunal. 13. Office is directed to return the summoned record to the Tribunal forthwith. 14. 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 KuD/27