Smt. Girja Bai Sen vs Sahdev Singh Chouhan
2026 Latest Caselaw 1191 Chatt

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

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. 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

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

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