Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Girja Bai Sen vs Sahdev Singh Chouhan on 1 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14971
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2127 of 2019
Digitally
1 - Smt. Girja Bai Sen W/o Late Ghanshyam Sen Aged About 32 Years R/o
signed by
HARNEET
HARNEET KAUR
KAUR Date:
2026.04.02
Village Dani Ghatoli, P. S. And Tahsil District Kabirdham (Kawardha)
10:53:29
+0530
Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
2 - Ku. Preeti 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) Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),
Chhattisgarh
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) Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),
Chhattisgarh
... 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) Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
2
2 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Office No. 01, Naveen Bazar, Phool Chowk, G. E. Road
Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
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 )
Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
... 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 Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 01.04.2026
1. Appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "the Act of 1988") calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 07/09/2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham in Claim Case No. 62/16 whereby the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has 3 been rejected finding that the claimants could not prove that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident in question.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record. He would further submit that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Sahdev Singh Chouhan (respondent No. 1 herein) has been charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 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 rejecting the claim application in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter 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 parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the appellants/claimants on two grounds. Firstly, because there is a delay in filing 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 offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question.
6. So far as the ground of delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the matter 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 settled that delay in lodging the 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."
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 rejecting claim application filed 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 offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC vide Exhibit A/1, which has also been proved by the Investigating Officer namely Ashwani Pandey, who has been examined as Court's witness and he has clearly stated that after investigation, charge-sheet has filed against the respondent No. 1 herein for offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.
8. Similarly, so far as the ground of involvement of the offending vehicle is concerned, on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 (Exhibit D/11), the matter was re-investigated and it has been recorded that the incident occurred on account of the offending 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-examination, but his statement could not be controverted. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident in question and the impugned award to that extent is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted to the Claims 6 Tribunal for considering the question of rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1 and further considering the quantum of compensation and thereby deciding the matter 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