Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Brijendra Singh Yadav And 3 Others on 27 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188088
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2455 of 2025
National Insurance Company Ltd
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Brijendra Singh Yadav And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Truck No.UP-75-AT-3049 against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah in MACP No. 690 of 2020, Brijendra Singh Yadav & Another Vs. Virendra Singh & others, whereby, in a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(parents of deceased Bitto) for the untimely death of their deceased minor daughter Bitto in an accident which occurred on 16.05.2018, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. The factual matrix is that on 16.05.2018 at about 11.00 A.M., Gaurav Yadav aged about 21 years, was returning from Bharthana, driving his motorcycle No. UP-75-AA-3969, and Snehlata PW-1 was also sitting behind the motorcycle with her eight months old daughter Bitto in her lap, then the above motorcycle was hit by Truck No.UP-75-AT-3049 near Virari Ashram under P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries to Gaurav Yadav, Snehlata and Bitto. Gaurav Yadav was taken to the Government Hospital, Etawah for treatment, where he was declared dead. Snehlata PW1 and her daughter Bitto was referred to Krishna Hospital, Agra for better treatment, but on reaching the hospital the doctors declared Bitto(claimants daughter) dead due to the injuries sustained in the accident. An FIR regarding the incident was registered by Gaurav Yadav?s maternal uncle Diwan Singh on 01.09.2018 at police station Ikdil, District Etawah being Case Crime No.290 of 2018, under Sections 279, 338, 427, 304 (A) IPC. The deceased(Bitto) was aged about 8 months, who used to help the claimants in their household chores, due to which the claimants used to save Rs.3,000/- per month. The tribunal granted fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 163A of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved against which, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court.
3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the accident was doubtful because the FIR was registered belatedly. No independent witness of the accident was examined. He further submitted that since the eye witness Snehlata PW-1 was a pillion rider, she could not have witnessed the registration number of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that her testimony is unreliable. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.
5. According to the claimants, accident took place on 16.05.2018 at about 11.00 A.M. when Gaurav Yadav (deceased) was returning from Bharthana, driving his motorcycle no. UP-75-AA-3969, and Snehlata Yadav PW-1 was also sitting behind the motorcycle with her eight months old daughter Bitto in her lap, then the above motorcycle was hit by the offending Truck No.UP-75-AT-3049, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing grievous injuries to Gaurav Yadav, who died subsequently.
6. Snehlata PW-1, the injured witness and the mother of the deceased, has appeared in the witness box and has proved the factum of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending truck. It is also evident that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending truck appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. The insurance company has also not led any cogent evidence to prove that the accident was caused by some other vehicle. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in registering FIR in motor accident cases, held 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.
18. 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 scrutinised more carefully. If the 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. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.
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 than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
8. In the instant case PW-1 has deposed in the cross examination that her motorcycle No. UP-75-AA-3969 was hit from behind by the offending truck No.UP-75-AT-3049 and after the accident, the truck had fled. It is true that in this case, the FIR was registered on 01.09.2018 against the unknown driver of truck no.UP-75-AT-3049, but only on this ground the accident cannot be termed as doubtful. The FIR discloses that the first informant and his family remained busy in the treatment of Gaurav Yadav, the deceased Bitto as well as Snehlata and after the death of Gaurav and Bitto, the last rites of the deceased were performed due to which the FIR could not be registered promptly.
9. Sufficient explanation for lodging the FIR with delay has been given by the claimants, as such, merely on this ground the accident could not be disbelieved.
10. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
11. This court has not expressed any opinion on the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
12. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
13. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is affirmed.
15. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 27, 2025
Himanshu
