Madhya Pradesh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Suresh Sen on 13 October, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25719
1 CR-787-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 787 of 2025
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SURESH SEN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.N. Malhotra, Advocate for the applicant
None for the respondents, though treated as deemed served.
ORDER
This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against
the Award dated 30/4/2025 passed by XXIII Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in MACC No.1677/2023.
2. Applicant is the Insurance Company who has challenged the Award
passed in favour of respondent No.1.
3. Since valuation of civil revision is less than Rs.1,00,000/-,
therefore, in the light of S.173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Miscellaneous
Appeal is not maintainable and, thus, this civil revision has been filed.
4. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that
respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
pleading inter alia that on 21/12/2022, at about 6.30 pm, when he was
returning back from his home on foot after closing down his shop, then the
driver of offending motorcycle bearing registration No. MP33-MU-9048
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25719
2 CR-787-2025
dashed him from behind, as a result he sustained injuries. He was
immediately taken to hospital and after he was discharged from the hospital,
he lodged the FIR.
5. It appears that the owner/driver of the Motorcycle had expired and
in spite of service on the legal representatives of respondent No.1, no written
statement was filed. Applicant/respondent No.2 filed its written statement
and claimed that owner/driver of the Motorcycle was not having driving
licence and because of breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance
Policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner.
6. The Claims Tribunal, after framing issues and recording evidence,
allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.61,550/- along with 6% interest
till actual payment is made.
7. Challenging the Award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is
submitted by counsel for applicant that since the FIR was lodged belatedly
i.e. after 13 days from the date of accident, therefore, offending motorcycle
was falsely implicated. No eye-witness was examined by the respondent
No.1 and once it was found that driver of the Motorcycle was not having
valid driving licence, then the Claims Tribunal should not have applied the
principle of pay and recover.
8. None appears for the respondents though served.
9. Heard, learned counsel for the applicant.
10. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 has suffered fracture and he had
remained hospitalized. Respondent No.1/PW1 in paragraph 2 of his
examination-in-chief has stated that since he was getting treatment therefore
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25719
3 CR-787-2025
he could not get the FIR lodged at the earliest and accordingly he lodged the
FIR on 2/1/2023. According to respondent No.1, he suffered fracture and he
was taken to Govt. Hospital Magroni from where he was shifted to District
Hospital, Shivpuri where he remained hospitalized for 5 days and was
operated upon.
11. It is well established principle of law that mere delay in lodging
FIR cannot be a ground to discard the claim petition. Claim petitions are to
be decided on the basis of material available on record. Even otherwise, FIR
is not an encyclopedia and, thus, delay in lodging FIR, by itself, is not
sufficient to hold that allegations made in the FIR are false. In case if the
delay in lodging FIR is plausibly explained, then it can be relied upon.
12. It is the case of respondent No.1 that after the accident he was
taken to local district hospital from where he was shifted to District Hospital,
Shivpuri where he was operated upon and after remaining hospitalized for
five days, he lodged the FIR. From the medical prescriptions, it is clear that
respondent No.1 has suffered fracture of right tibia and fibula bone. Once a
person suffers injury in the form of fracture of tibia and fibula bone, then it is
not expected from him that instead of getting himself treated, he should run
to the police station to lodge FIR. Therefore, delay in lodging FIR has been
properly explained by respondent No.1.
13. So far as the contention that no eye-witness has been examined by
respondent No.1 is concerned, it is suffice to clarify that claim petitions are
to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The claimant
himself is the injured witness and merely because no eye-witness has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25719
4 CR-787-2025
examined, it cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of injured claimant.
14. So far as the question of pay and recover is concerned, in the light
of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited versus Swaran Singh and others reported in 2004 ACJ
1 , this Court is of considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal did not
commit any mistake by applying the principle of pay and recover after
holding that driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence.
Furthermore, the insurance policy is a statutory contract between the owner
and insurance company and the insurance company undertakes to indemnify
the owner against all claims which may arise. There is no privity of contract
between third party and insurance company and, therefore, third party cannot
be made to suffer merely on the ground that the terms and conditions of the
Insurance Policy were not followed.
15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion
that no illegality was committed by the Claims Tribunal in passing the
Award dated 30/4/2025 passed by XXIII Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Gwalior in MACC No.1677/2023. It is, accordingly, affirmed.
16. Revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
