[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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,
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.
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
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
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
