Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Ranjan, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr.Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Alok Kr.Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:

Case Details * Case Name: Suhagrani And Others vs. Manager Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. * Court: Supreme Court of India. * Bench: J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. * Civil Appeal No.: 9476 of 2025 (originally SLP (Civil) No. 25092 of 2024). * Decided On: 14-07-2025. * Subject: Motor Vehicle - Claims and Compensation. * Act Referred: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166. (!) (!) (!)

Important Legal Principle * The non-filing of a complaint immediately after the occurrence of an accident is not fatal to the claimants, especially when family members are in trauma and attending to immediate medical requirements of the deceased. (!)

Facts of the Case * The appellants (claimants) challenged the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had dismissed their claim petition and set aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). (!) * On 24.09.2021, Mr. Nathuram Ahirwar (husband of claimant No. 1) was driving a motorcycle with his wife (claimant No. 1) as a pillion rider. (!) * The motorcycle was hit from the hindside by a mini-truck bearing registration No. MP 04 GB 5604. (!) * The deceased sustained injuries and expired on 01.10.2021 while being treated. (!) * The insurer contended that the deceased fell due to loss of balance/negligence of his own and that the offending vehicle's driver did not possess a valid license. (!) * The wife of the deceased (PW-1) was the best witness as she was present at the time of the accident. (!) * The son of the deceased (PW-2) had given a statement to the police suggesting the deceased fell due to imbalance, which the High Court relied upon to dismiss the claim. (!) * However, PW-2 denied making such a statement before the police during the Tribunal proceedings. (!) * The insurer never challenged the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. (!)

Findings of the Court * The High Court erred in ignoring the evidence of PW-1 (the wife) and giving undue importance to the statement of PW-2 (the son), especially since PW-2 retracted his police statement. (!) * The High Court failed to consider that the filing of a chargesheet against the offending driver was not disputed. (!) * The Supreme Court set aside the findings of the High Court. (!) * Regarding compensation, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 12,43,324/- with 6% interest. (!) * The claim for high agricultural income (Rs. 10-20 lakhs annually) was rejected due to lack of documentary evidence. (!) * Even if agricultural income was considered, the loss of dependency is offset by the fact that the wife retains 50% of the pension. (!) * The Supreme Court affirmed the compensation of Rs. 12,43,324/- with 6% interest as just and reasonable. (!) * The compensation was apportioned as follows: 85% to the wife of the deceased and 15% to the three minor children in the ratio of 5:5:5. (!)

Result * Appeal allowed in part. (!) (!) * The award of the Tribunal stands modified regarding the apportionment of compensation. (!)