[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Satvantin Yadav on 23 March, 2026

Digitally
2026:CGHC:13706
SAIFAN signed by
KHAN SAIFAN
KHAN
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 2054 of 2019
United India Insurance Company Limited By Divisional Office, Madina
Building, Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through
Authorised Signatory, Deputy Manager, T.P. Hub, United India
Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar
Vihar Road, Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
1 - Satvantin Yadav W/o Late Rumlal Aged About 42 Years Resident Of
Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S. And Tehsil Arang, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Tameshwar Yadav S/o Late Rumlal Yadav Aged About 18 Years
Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S. And Tehsil Arang,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Pitambar Yadav S/o Late Rumlal Yadav Aged About 16 Years
Minor's Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Satvantin Yadav
Respondent No. 1 Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S.
And Tehsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Gaurishankar Yadav S/o Late Rumlal Yadav Aged About 14 Years
Minor's Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Satvantin Yadav
Respondent No. 1 Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S.
And Tehsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Bhawan Bai Yadav W/o Chaituram Yadav (Wongly Mentioned D/o)
Aged About 66 Years Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon,
P.S. And Tehsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
6 - Amit Banjare S/o Harmohan Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village Ghodari, Post Birkoni, P.S. Mahasamund, Tehsil And District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2

7 - Govind Dewangan S/o Gulab Dewangan R/o Purana
Ravanbhantha, Ward No. 12,mahasamund, Tehsil And District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WITH

MAC No. 2055 of 2019
United India Insurance Company Limited By Divisional Office, Madina
Building, Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through-
Authorised Signatory, Manager, T.P. Hub, United India Insurance
Company Limited, 2nd Floor Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road,
Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District
: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Parwati Kurrey Wd/o. Late Ashwini Kurrey Aged About 31
Years Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S. And Tahsil
Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Minor Ku. Gayatri Kurrey D/o. Late Ashwini Kurrey Aged About 13
Years Minors, Through Natural Guardian Mother Parwati Kurrey
Respondent No. 1. Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S.
And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Minor Kunal Kumar Kurrey S/o. Late Ashwini Kurrey Aged About 7
Years Minors, Through Natural Guardian Mother Parwati Kurrey
Respondent No. 1. Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S.
And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Minor Ku. Veena Kurrey D/o. Late Ashwini Kurrey Aged About 4
Years Minors, Through Natural Guardian Mother Parwati Kurrey
Respondent No. 1. Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S.
And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Shobharam Kurrey S/o. Late Baratu Ram Kurrey Aged About 74
Years Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S. And Tahsil
Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Bodhnibai Kurrey W/o. Shobharam Kurrey Aged About 65 Years
Resident Of Village Chhatera, Post Paragaon, P.S. And Tahsil Arang,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Amit Banjare S/o. Harmohan Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o.
Village Ghodari, Post Birkoni, P.S. Mahasamund, Tehsil And District
3

Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
8 - Govind Dewangan S/o. Gulab Dewangan Aged About 47 Years R/o.
Purana Ravanbhantha, Ward No. 12 Mahasamund, Tehsil And District
Manasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Amicus Curiae : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 23.03.2025

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the question of facts and

law involved and being arising out of a common incident, on the joint

request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are

clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this

common order.

2. In these appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,

1988 (for short the "MV Act"), the appellant-Insurance Company is

calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned

awards dated 05.08.2019, passed in Claim Case No.26/2018 & Claim

Case No.25/2018 by 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (CG),

whereby the claim applications filed by the claimants has been allowed

and compensation to the tune of Rs.7,78,750/- and 9,20,500/- have

been awarded to them alongwith interest @ 7% PA from the date of

claim till its actual realization on account of death of Rumlal Yadav and

Ashwini Kurrey, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant-

Insurance Company herein.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would

submit that in the present case accident occurred on 15.11.2017

between 10:30 to 11:30 PM, whereas FIR to that effect was lodged on

16.11.2017 at about 08:15 AM 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.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would support the impugned awards and prays for

dismissal of both the appeals.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and went through the record with

utmost circumspection.

6. 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 1 (2011) 4 SCC 493

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 than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."

7. In view of above settled legal position, the 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-06-G-7500 involved

in the accident on the date of occurrence and, due to which, two

deceased persons, namely, Rumlal Yadav and Ashwini Kurrey suffered

grievous injuries and died. Even otherwise, in the present case,

accident occurred on 15.11.2017 between 10:30 to 11:30 PM, whereas

FIR to that effect was lodged on 16.11.2017 at about 08:15 AM, which

cannot be considered to be huge delay in lodging the FIR. Moreover,

the insurance company has not led any evidence to demonstrate the

fact that the vehicle in question was falsely implanted the in the