[2026:RJ-JP:7516] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1297/2020 1. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Late Ratan Lal, Aged 38 Years, 2. Kumari Pooja D/o Late Ratan Lal, Aged 20 Years, 3. Kumari Nitu D/o Late Ratan Lal, Aged 18 Years, 4. Hemraj S/o Late Ratan Lal, Aged 17 Years, 5. Kumari Kumkum D/o Late Ratan Lal, Aged 15 Years, Appellants No.4 & 5 are minor through their natural guardian/mother Smt. Sita Devi. 6. Smt. Prem Devi W/o Late Bhanwar Lal, Aged 66 Years, all R/o Village Pachevar Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk. Presently Village Jhag Tehsil Mojamabad Distt. Jaipur. ----Appellants-Claimants Versus 1. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Bodu Lal, aged 38 years, R/o Village Pachevar Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk (Driver Vehicle No.RJ- 26-SG-5492). 2. Baluram S/o Bajrang Lal, R/o Village Pachevar Tehsil Malpura Distt. Tonk (Owner Vehicle No. RJ-26-SG-5492). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. (Ins. Co. Vehicle No. RJ-26-SG- 5492). ----Respondents/Non-claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 17/02/2026 1. By way of filing the instant Civil misc. appeal a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District and [2026:RJ-JP:7516] (2 of 6) [CMA-1297/2020] Sessions Judge Dudu, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.239/2018 (67/2013), 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. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that on 17.10.2012 the deceased was walking on the road when the driver of a motorcycle bearing No.RJ26-SG-5492 caused the accident by hitting him while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he sustained several injuries on various parts of his body and he was admitted in Pachewar Government Hospital in serious condition, thereafter, he was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Counsel submits that the deceased remained under treatment since 17.10.2012 till 26.10.2012 and thereafter, he passed away on 01.11.2012 and an FIR bearing No.94/2012 was registered with the Police Station Pachewar by his brother on 02.11.2012, thereafter, the claim petition was submitted by the claimants seeking compensation before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has rejected the same not on merits but on a technical count of delay i.e. 16 days delay in lodging the FIR with the concerned Police Station. Counsel submits that the claim should have been decided on its merits instead of rejecting the same on this technical count, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the claimants and submits that when the incident has [2026:RJ-JP:7516] (3 of 6) [CMA-1297/2020] occurred on 17.10.2012 and the FIR could have been registered immediately, but the same was registered on 02.11.2012 i.e. after a delay of 16 days, for which no reasonable explanation has been given by the claimants. Counsel submits that a fact has also come on record that the medical documents of the deceased stated that he died by falling from the motorcycle hence, he has suffered injuries, 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 bearing No.94/2012 was registered with the Police Station Pachewar on 02.11.2012 against the driver of the motorcycle bearing No.RJ-26- SG-5492, wherein it was alleged that he has caused accident by driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and by hitting the deceased, for which the deceased has sustained several injuries and remained under treatment at the SMS Hospital from 17.10.2012 till 26.10.2012 and during the course of his treatment, he passed away on 01.11.2012. The aforesaid FIR was registered by brother of the deceased on 02.11.2012. 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 well settled proposition of law, that the claim cannot be rejected on this technical count of slight delay in lodging the FIR. [2026:RJ-JP:7516] (4 of 6) [CMA-1297/2020] 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 petition is not liable to be rejected. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & 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 [2026:RJ-JP:7516] (5 of 6) [CMA-1297/2020] 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 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. The argument raised by counsel for the claimants that the deceased fell from the motorcycle and has suffered injuries is kept open and the same would be decided by the Tribunal at the time of final arguments. The parties would be at liberty to produce evidence in support of their contentions. 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 01.04.2026 and thereafter on the date fixed by the Tribunal. [2026:RJ-JP:7516] (6 of 6) [CMA-1297/2020] 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 AARZOO ARORA /17