1 2026:CGHC:8659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1818 of 2023 1 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through - Its Legal Manager, Present Address - Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Deepak Banchhor S/o Sunil Banchor Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Sahu Para, Oteband, P.S. Nandini, District Durg (C.G.),...(Claimant) 2 - Sajid Khan S/o Harun Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Basna, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), Present Address - House No. 279, Block No. 15, Adarsh Chowk, Atal Niwas Kabirnagar, P.S. Kabirnagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.),(Driver),....(Scorpio Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 04 Du 2010) 3 - Umesh Kumar Dubey S/o Nand Kumar Dubey Aged About 58 Years R/o Kabirnagar Hig Gd 147, Phase-3, P.S. Kabirnagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) Permanent Address, Village Hinouta, P.S. Manjhouli, District Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh),(Owner),.....(Scorpio Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 04 Du 2010) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. along with Mr. Sourabh Gupta Adv. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Advocate For other respondents : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 18.2.2026 1) The appellant–Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg(C.G.) in Claim Case No.288/2019 dated 01.07.2023 whereby, the 2 learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.24,66,000/- with interest @ 6% on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. 2) Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that on 06.10.2018 at around 10:00 p.m., motorcycle of the claimant was dashed by driver of the Scorpio bearing registration No.C.G.04/D.U./2010 by driving it rashly and negligently. He would further submit that in said accident, the claimant sustained injuries and remained hospitalized for a considerable period. He would contend that left leg of the claimant was amputated below knee. He would further contend that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% and a certificate was issued by the Medical Board vide Ex.P/81. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation on higher side. It is argued that there was delay in registration of FIR and same was not explained properly. He would further submit that there was contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorbike/claimant and sufficient ground was taken in this regard in the reply filed by the Insurance Company. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal failed to frame issue with regard to contributory negligence and fastened liability with the Insurance Company. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that the Insurance Company failed to examine witnesses to establish factum of contributory negligence. He would further submit that FIR was lodged after three days as the claimant was in hospital. He would 3 contend that on account of delay caused in registration of FIR, the case of the claimant cannot be doubted. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has considered disability and granted just and proper compensation to the claimant. He would pray that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi and Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others1 while dealing with the similar issue in para 10 held as under :- “to prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the incident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of the common law cannot be applied in the present case. We are, thus of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6) With regard to delay in registration of FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others2 held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case and knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. It is also held that in cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny. 7) In the present case, the claimant suffered permanent disability as his 1. 2014 (4) SCC 511 2. (2011) 4 SCC 693 4 left leg was amputated below right knee, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly assessed functional disability to the extent of 50% and assessed loss of income to the tune of Rs.20,16,000/-. Learned Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- for special diet; Rs.20,000/- for attendant and medical expenses Rs.4,00,000/- In my opinion, learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and the grounds raised in this appeal have already been considered and decided by the learned Tribunal, thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha