Madhya Pradesh High Court
Magma Hdi General Insurace Company Thr vs Smt.Rajni Bai on 30 October, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27597
1 MA-607-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 607 of 2016
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURACE COMPANY THR
Versus
SMT.RAJNI BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirendra Singh Tomar - Advocate for appellant- Insurance
Company.
Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta,- Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 7-
claimants.
None for respondents No. 8 and 9- driver and owner of offending
vehicle though served.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") has been filed
by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award dated 22.02.2016
passed by the learned 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.
92 of 2015, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs. 8,63,500/- along with interest in favour of the claimants from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization, on account of the death of Ashok
Kumar in a motor accident.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27597
2 MA-607-2016
2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, stating that on
05.07.2013, the deceased Ashok Kumar was travelling from Shivpuri to
Gohad Chauraha on his motorcycle. Near Simraiya Corner, A.B. Road, the
driver of an Ambulance bearing registration No. MP 04 DB 0550, driving
rashly and negligently, went to the wrong side of the road and hit the
motorcycle, causing fatal injuries to Ashok Kumar, who later succumbed to
the injuries during treatment. Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (present respondent
Nos. 8 and 9) did not file any written statement and were proceeded ex parte.
The present appellant-Insurance Company filed its written statement
denying the accident and contending that the insured Ambulance No. MP 04
DB 0550 was not involved in the alleged incident. The appellant also
obtained permission under Section 170 of the MV Act on 06.01.2015 to
contest the claim on all grounds available to the owner and driver of the
vehicle. The claimants examined Smt. Rajni Bai (PW-1), Subash Chand
Gupta, Record Keeper, J.A. Hospital, Gwalior (PW-2), Ram Naresh Sahu
(PW-3), and Investigating Officer Dayaram Sharma (PW-4). After hearing
the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned Award holding the
Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assailed the
Award on several grounds, primarily contending that the impugned Award is
contrary to law and evidence on record. It was submitted that the learned
Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the provisions of Sections 147, 149,
and 166 of the MV Act. The claimants failed to prove the involvement of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27597
3 MA-607-2016
Ambulance No. MP 04 DB 0550 in the accident. It was further argued that
the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of 40 days, on 15.08.2013,
based on a Marg Intimation dated 09.07.2013. Such a delayed FIR,
according to the appellant, casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the
claim. The witness Ram Naresh Sahu (PW-3) was unreliable, and his
conduct was unnatural. Despite allegedly being an eyewitness, he did not
lodge any report with the police. His testimony was full of contradictions and
omissions. The appellant also contended that the entire police investigation
was conducted by a single officer, Dayaram Sharma (PW-4), which was
contrary to procedural fairness and indicative of collusion between the
claimants, the owner and driver of the vehicle, and the police. The spot of
accident, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, was accident-prone, and it
was probable that the deceased's motorcycle had slipped due to his own
negligence. The learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the challan papers
and failed to notice that the insured vehicle was falsely implicated to secure
compensation. The claimants did not properly explain the delay, and the
chain of investigation revealed inconsistencies. The appellant placed reliance
upon the following judgments: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meghji Naran
Soratiya & Ors., 2009 ACJ 1441, Anil & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3291-3292 of 2011, decided on
19.01.2011 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalawati & Ors. , 2014 ACJ 2772
and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla & Ors. , 2007 ACJ 1928
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported
the impugned Award and submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27597
4 MA-607-2016
well-reasoned judgment after proper appreciation of evidence. It was argued
that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained, as the
immediate concern of the family was the treatment and cremation of the
deceased. It was further contended that the testimony of PW-3 Ram Naresh
Sahu, though challenged, was found credible by the Tribunal and supported
by medical and documentary evidence. The fact that the investigation was
conducted by a single police officer does not render the investigation invalid
or prejudicial to the appellant unless mala fides are established, which is not
the case here. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ranjeet and Another v. Abdul Kayam Neb and Another, in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10351 of 2019 , wherein it was held that minor
procedural irregularities or delay in lodging the FIR are not fatal to the claim
when the overall evidence establishes the occurrence of the accident.
5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
6. It is a settled principle of law that delay in filing the FIR is not fatal
either in criminal or claim cases, provided that sufficient and cogent reasons
for the delay are given. In Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others , AIR 2011 SC
1226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground
to doubt the claimant's case. Considering the conditions prevailing
in India, it would be unrealistic to expect a common man to rush
to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature
and family responsibilities often engage the attention of the
victim's relatives to such an extent that they give greater
importance to arranging medical treatment for the injured rather
than promptly reporting the matter to the police. Delay in lodging
the FIR, therefore, cannot be a ground to deny justice to the
victim. In cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the
evidence with closer scrutiny, and while doing so, the contents of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27597
5 MA-607-2016
the FIR should be carefully assessed. If the Court finds that there
is no indication of fabrication or that the report has not been
concocted or engineered to falsely implicate any person, then even
if there is some delay in lodging the FIR, the claim cannot be
dismissed merely on that ground."
7. In the present case, Investigating Officer Dayaram Sharma (PW-4)
has deposed that as per Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-19, statements of Ram Naresh
Sahu and Raju Pal were recorded, who stated that they witnessed the
accident while travelling from Gwalior to Shivpuri. The offending vehicle
number was disclosed to Banti Parihar, brother-in-law of the deceased, who
later lodged the FIR after the inquest report. The accident occurred on a
highway, and the deceased was first taken to the hospital, where he died after
four to five days.
8. Filing the FIR on the same day was, therefore, not natural or
feasible. It is also not expected that every eyewitness would immediately
rush to the police station to lodge a report. Hence, the delay in lodging the
FIR stands reasonably explained.
9. It is not disputed that the deceased Ashok Kumar died due to injuries
sustained in a road accident on 05.07.2013. The contention of the appellant
that the delay of 40 days in lodging the FIR is fatal cannot be accepted. It is
well settled that in motor accident cases, some delay in lodging the FIR is
not unusual and cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the claim,
particularly when the occurrence of the accident and the death of the victim
are otherwise proved by cogent evidence.
10. In the present case, the claimants have satisfactorily explained the
delay by stating that the family was preoccupied with the treatment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27597
6 MA-607-2016
subsequent death rituals of the deceased. The FIR was eventually lodged
based on the Marg Intimation, which had already been recorded within a few
days of the accident.
11. As regards the allegation of false implication of Ambulance No.
MP 04 DB 0550, the Tribunal rightly relied upon the statements of PW-3
Ram Naresh Sahu and PW-4 Dayaram Sharma, along with documentary
evidence such as the post-mortem report, site map, and challan papers. The
Tribunal analyzed each witness's testimony and recorded a finding that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said
Ambulance.
12. The argument that the entire investigation was conducted by a
single officer does not vitiate the investigation in the absence of any specific
prejudice or evidence of bias. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any
procedural illegality or mala fides on the part of the Investigating Officer.
13. The reliance placed by the appellant on Premlata Shukla and
Meghji Naran Soratiya (supra) is misplaced. Those cases involved clear
evidence of false claims or collusion. In the present case, the appellant has
not produced any material to establish collusion between the claimants and
the owner or driver of the vehicle.
14. The findings of the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence. No perversity or illegality has been shown
to justify interference by this Court under Section 173 of the MV Act.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27597
7 MA-607-2016
correct appreciation of facts and law. The delay in lodging the FIR has been
properly explained, and the conduct of investigation by a single officer has
not prejudiced the appellant in any manner.
16. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company
is dismissed. The impugned Award dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned
14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case
No. 92/2015 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
