Chattisgarh High Court
Future Generally India Insurance ... vs Smt. Chumman Patel on 25 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:36139
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 478 of 2024
1. Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited Through
Its Legal Manager, 2nd Floor, Malay Heights, Mahadev Ghat
Road, Sunder Nagar, Opp. RBI, Raipur, Tah & Distt. Raipur
(CG)
... Appellant-insurer
versus
1. Smt. Chumman Patel W/o Late Chitrakant Patel Aged About
24 Years
2. Ku. Litika Patel D/o Late Chitrakant Patel Aged About 4 Years
3. Rishabh Kumar Patel S/o Late Chitrakant Patel Aged About 3
Years
Respondents No.2 & 3 being minor through natural guardian
mother Smt. Chumman Patel
4. Smt. Shivbati Patel W/o Goverdhan Patel Aged About 50 Years
5. Goverdhan Patel S/o Late Khorbahra Patel Aged About 55
Years
All are R/o village Khiloura, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG)
Claimants
6. Maheshwar Shivare S/o Manbodhi Ram Shivare Aged About
27 Years R/o Vill. Dattarenga, Ward No. 17, P.S. Abhanpur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Owner
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
25/7/2025
1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal
seeking exoneration from the liability to pay amount of
compensation awarded to claimants by the learned 9 th
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur (for short 'the
Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 17.1.2024 passed in Claim
Case No.361/2022 on the ground of false involvement of the
offending vehicle.
2. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the accident
was reported in concerned police station after inordinate delay
of 50 days against unknown vehicle and even in the inquest of
deceased, it is mentioned that motorcycle of deceased was
dashed by unknown vehicle, which creates serious doubt
about the involvement of offending vehicle in accident in
question. However, the Claims Tribunal ignoring the aforesaid
facts and relying on the evidence of claimants, FIR (Ex.P-2)
and medical documents, has wrongly concluded that accident
was caused by the offending vehicle. In alternate, he submits
that overall compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is
on higher side and deserves to be reduced suitably.
3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the record of
claim case.
4. Admitted facts of case are that deceased died on 21.2.2022
consequent to grievous injuries suffered by him in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 20.2.2022. Intimation regarding
death of deceased was sent by VY Hospital, Raipur and based
upon which Merg bearing No.4/22 was registered on
22.2.2022. In this merg, it is mentioned that deceased died due
to head injury sustained by him in accident. FIR of accident
was registered on 12.4.2022. Claim application was filed on
26.4.2022 and in order to prove that deceased in a road traffic
accident, claimants examined Chumman Lal Nishad as AW-2
to prove the factum of accident. This witness has stated that
on the fateful date, when he was waiting for auto-rickshaw in
front of Floral City, Dunda, one motorcycle dashed the
motorcycle of deceased and caused accident. As a result,
deceased sustained grievous injuries, he with the help of
others took the deceased to VY Hospital, Raipur where he died
during treatment. He further deposed that after about 1½
months, police came to him, upon inquiry, he narrated the
accident. This witness was examined at length but he stuck to
the version stated in examination-in-chief.
5. Meanwhile, after a detailed investigation being done by the
police, involvement of offending motorcycle has been found,
and therefore a charge sheet was filed against non-applicant
No.1 citing Chumman Lal Nishad and Lav Kumar Nishad as
eyewitnesses.
6. The owner-cum-driver of offending motorcycle i.e. non-
applicant No.1 did not participate in claim proceedings to
counter pleadings of claimants or to establish that offending
vehicle was not involved in the accident. The owner or driver
could have been the best person to throw light as to whether
the offending vehicle was really involved in the said accident or
not. However, perusal of record reveals that appellant-
insurance company despite grant of permission under Section
170 of the Act of 1988 did not take any steps to summon non-
applicant No.1, owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle to
establish its plea of non-involvement of the offending vehicle.
7. In decision of Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 it is ruled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that in claim cases the claimant is not
under the obligation to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt. The claim cases are to be decided on the principle of
preponderance of probability. Principle of beyond reasonable
doubt is not applicable in such cases.
8. It is also well settled that if the driver of the offending vehicle is
not examined on behalf of non-applicants without any tangible
explanation, a presumption is liable to be drawn against him
that he was driving the offending vehicle rashly and
negligently. Furthermore, as per settled position in law, where
FIR is lodged, charge sheet is filed and the driver of the
offending vehicle is facing criminal trial, prima facie it can be
presumed that vehicle was involved in the accident and its
driver was responsible for accident.
9. In case at hand, the owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle
chose not to take part in claim proceeding even though the
notice was served on him, insurance company has not taken
any steps for examination of the owner-cum-driver of the
offending vehicle to prove the case of non-involvement of the
vehicle. On the contrary, after completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed by police against offending vehicle
which clearly establishes the fact about its involvement in the
accident. Thus, it is clear that there is no evidence on record
to counter the case of the claimants regarding involvement of
the offending vehicle in the accident. Hence, this Court do not
find any reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the
Claims Tribunal with regard to involvement of offending vehicle
in the accident and it is affirmed.
10. As regards delay in lodging of FIR, from the record it is
appearing that information regarding death of deceased due to
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident caused by unknown
vehicle, was sent to the police on 21.2.2022 and based on
which, police station concerned registered Merg No.4/22.
When the intimation of accident by unknown vehicle was
properly given to the police, it is the duty of the police to inquire
into the matter, register FIR, and search the vehicle that
caused the accident. It cannot be expected from the family
members of deceased to search and provide registration of the
vehicle which has caused accident. If the police thereafter was
lethargic in conducting the merg enquiry then the claimants
cannot be blamed. Even it is well established principle of law
that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient to dislodge
the case of the claimant as held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan, reported in AIR 2011 SC
1226. Hence, this Court does not find any force in the
submission of learned counsel for appellant that there is delay
in lodging of FIR and therefore, the case set-up against the
appellant is suspicious, and hence, it is repelled.
11. For the foregoing, the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance
Company is found to be meritless and is accordingly
dismissed.
SYED
ROSHAN Sd/-
ZAMIR ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu)
by SYED Judge
roshan/-
