1 2026:CGHC:14971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2127 of 2019 1 - Smt. Girja Bai Sen W/o Late Ghanshyam Sen Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dani Ghatoli, P. S. And Tahsil District Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chha*sgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chha*sgarh 2 - Ku. Pree, Sen D/o Late Ghanshyam Sen Aged About 14 Years Appellant No. 2 Minor Through Natural Guardian And Mother Appellant No. 01, Smt. Girja Sen, R/o Village Dani Ghatoli, P. S. And Tahsil District Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chha*sgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chha*sgarh 3 - Sumit Kumar S/o Late Ghanshyam Sen Aged About 12 Years Appellant No. 3 Minor Through Natural Guardian And Mother Appellant No. 01, Smt. Girja Sen, R/o Village Dani Ghatoli, P. S. And Tahsil District Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chha*sgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chha*sgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Sahdev Singh Chouhan S/o Santosh Singh Chouhan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sukhathal, P. S. And Tahsil District Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chha*sgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chha*sgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.02 10:53:29 +0530 2 2 - Na,onal Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Na,onal Insurance Co. Ltd. O8ce No. 01, Naveen Bazar, Phool Chowk, G. E. Road Raipur Chha*sgarh, District : Raipur, Chha*sgarh. 3 - Kaushaliya Bai W/o Late Hariram Sen Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dani Ghatoli, P. S. And Tahsil And District Kabirdham (Kawardha ) Chha*sgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chha*sgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai on behalf of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Advocates For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.N. Pusty with Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Jus.ce Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 01.04.2026 1. Appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Sec,on 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinaBer, “the Act of 1988”) calling in ques,on the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 07/09/2019 passed by learned Addi,onal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham in Claim Case No. 62/16 whereby the claim applica,on Fled by the appellants/claimants under Sec,on 166 of the Act of 1988 has 3 been rejected Fnding that the claimants could not prove that the oGending vehicle was involved in the accident in ques,on. 2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjus,Fed in rejec,ng the claim applica,on Fled by the appellants/claimants by recording a Fnding which is perverse and contrary to the record. He would further submit that the driver of the oGending vehicle namely Sahdev Singh Chouhan (respondent No. 1 herein) has been charge-sheeted for oGence punishable under Sec,on 304-A of IPC on 12/07/2016 vide Exhibit A/1 and merely because the accident occurred on 11/12/2015 and FIR was registered with a delay on 23/05/2015 vide Exhibit A/2, it cannot be a good ground for rejec,ng the claim applica,on in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the maJer of Ravi v. Badrinarayan1, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the impugned award and submit that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the par,es, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspec,on. 5. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim applica,on Fled by the appellants/claimants on two grounds. Firstly, because there is a delay in Fling of FIR as the accident occurred on 11/12/2015 whereas FIR was registered on 23/05/2015 vide Exhibit A/2 and secondly, holding that the oGending vehicle was not involved in the accident in ques,on. 6. So far as the ground of delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the maJer of Ravi (supra), 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 seJled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian condi,ons as they are, we cannot expect a common man to Frst rush to the police sta,on immediately aBer an accident. Human nature and family responsibili,es occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the vic,m treated rather than to rush to the police sta,on. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promp,tude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny jus,ce to the vic,m.” 7. As such, in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ravi (supra), the ground of delay in lodging 5 FIR cannot be a good ground for rejec,ng claim applica,on Fled by the claimants also on the ground as it subsequently culminated into charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle i.e. Sahdev Singh Chouhan (respondent No. 1) for oGence punishable under Sec,on 304A of IPC vide Exhibit A/1, which has also been proved by the Inves,ga,ng O8cer namely Ashwani Pandey, who has been examined as Court’s witness and he has clearly stated that aBer inves,ga,on, charge-sheet has Fled against the respondent No. 1 herein for oGence punishable under Sec,on 304A of IPC. 8. Similarly, so far as the ground of involvement of the oGending vehicle is concerned, on the basis of complaint Fled by the respondent No. 1 (Exhibit D/11), the maJer was re-inves,gated and it has been recorded that the incident occurred on account of the oGending vehicle. Moreover, eye-witness Manoj Verma (A.W.-2) has been examined before the Court and he has supported the case of the claimants and even though he has been subjected to cross-examina,on, but his statement could not be controverted. In that view of the maJer, the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the oGending vehicle was not involved in the accident in ques,on and the impugned award to that extent is hereby set aside. MaJer is remiJed to the Claims 6 Tribunal for considering the ques,on of rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1 and further considering the quantum of compensa,on and thereby deciding the maJer within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by passing a reasoned and speaking order absolutely in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet