Chattisgarh High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Koshilya Patel on 23 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13708
Digitally
SAIFAN signed by NAFR
KHAN SAIFAN
KHAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1587 of 2019
The United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Ashram
Complex, Mahasamund Police Station Tehsil And District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh. Through Authorised Singnatory, Deputy Manager, T.P.
Hub. Divisional Office, United India Insarance Company Limited 2nd
Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Police Station Civil
Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Koshilya Patel W/o Late Shri Ghasiram Patel Aged About 50
Years R/o Village Kasahibahra, Police Station And Tehsil Pithora,
District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Toshram Patel S/o Late Shri Ghasiram Patel Aged About 30 Years
R/o Village Kasahibahra, Police Station And Tehsil Pithora, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3 - Pitamber Patel S/o Late Shri Ghasiram Patel Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Kasahibahra, Police Station And Tehsil Pithora, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
4 - Rajkumar S/o Sevak Ram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Ghodari, Post Office, Birkoni, Police Station Tehsil And District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver/ Owner Of Vehicle Bearing No.
C.G.04-Dv- 7564), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 23.03.2025
1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 2 1988 (for short the "MV Act"), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 29.04.2019, passed in Claim Case No.H489/2014 by 1 st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG), whereby the claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.4,13,200/- have been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 7% PA from the date of claim till its actual realization on account of death of Ghasiram Patel, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that in the present case accident occurred on 10.02.2014, whereas FIR to that effect was lodged on 09.04.2014 and, as such, the involvement of the vehicle in question is doubtful. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law while fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Insurance Company. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned awards and prays for dismissal of both the appeals. Additionally, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants submits that he has also filed cross-objection with regard to enhancement of the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-, as the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount on the head of loss of consortium to the claimants No.02 & 03, namely, Toshram Patel and Pitamber Patel.
3
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
5. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others1, whereby their Lordships have clearly held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case and observed in Para-17 & 19 as under:
"17. 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.
**** **** **** ****
19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the 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 a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity 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 1 (2011) 4 SCC 493 4 than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
6. In view of above settled legal position, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be taken as a ground to reject the claimants' case more particularly when the learned Claims Tribunal after full-fledged trial has found that the vehicle in question bearing No.CG-04-DV-7564 involved in the accident on the date of occurrence and, due to which, deceased person, namely, Ghasiram Patel suffered grievous injuries and died. Moreover, the insurance company has not led any evidence to demonstrate the fact that the vehicle in question was falsely implanted the in the accident in question. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned awards, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 173 of the MV Act and same is liable to be rejected.
7. So far as the cross-objection filed by the respondent-claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC is concerned, after perusal of the record, it appears that on the head of loss of consortium for the claimants No.02 & 03, namely, Toshram Patel and Pitamber Patel, no separate amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal and, for which, they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each.
8. In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation of Rs.4,13,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,93,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,13,200/-, the claimants, specially, Toshram Patel and Pitamber Patel are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.80,000/- (i.e. Rs.40,000/- each). The 5 concerned respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed being meritless, whereas, the cross-objection filed by the respondent/claimant is partly allowed. No cost.
sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if