2025:CGHC:58016 ASHOK SAHU NAFR Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Date:

2025.11.29

18:15:14 +0530 MAC No. 1699 of 2023 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, E-8 RIICOI, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, (Rajasthan), Through - Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

... Appellant versus

1 - Smt. Thanwarin Bai, W/o. Krishna Sinha, Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Resident Village- Seoni Tahsil & District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Padmini, D/o. Krishana Sinha, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Resident Village – Seoni, Tahsil & District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Manisha, D/o. Krishna Sinha, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Resident Village - Seoni Tahsil & District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rukmani, D/o. Krishna Sinha, Aged About 19 Years, R/o. Resident Village – Seoni, Tahsil & District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Priyanka, D/o. Krishna Sinha, Aged About 16 Years, Minor, Through Legal Guardian Respondent No. 1, R/o. Resident Village – Seoni, Tahsil & District - Balod, Chhattisgarh.

6 - Keshav, S/o. Krishna Sinha, Aged About 14 Years, Minor, Through Legal Guardian Respondent No.1, R/o. Resident Village –

Seoni, Tahsil & District - Balod, Chhattisgarh.

7 - Smt. Basanta, W/o. Shivcharan Sinha, Aged About 70 Years, R/o.Resident Village– Seoni, Tahsil & District - Balod, Chhattisgarh.

…..(Claimants)

8 - Tejesh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Yaduram Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. Village And Post Parsoda (Sohntara), P.S. - Tahsil &

District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

9 - Yashwant Kumar Sahu, S/o. Omkar Ram Sahu, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. Village Chiraigodi, Post - B/Jamgaon, P.S. And District -

Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to : Mr. Benoon, Advocate on behalf

4 & 7. of Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate (Single Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board

28.11.2025

1. The insurance company has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning the impugned award dated 05.07.2023 on two grounds; first, that there is delay in lodging the FIR and second, that the vehicle was wrongly involved in the accident in question. Therefore, the insurance company be exonerated from its liability to pay the amount of compensation.

2. Mr. P.R.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the delay in lodging the FIR would fatal to the claimants and vehicle was not involved in the accident in question; therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

3. Mr. Benoon, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, would oppose the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company and would submit that the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously.

5. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 29.10.2021 and FIR was lodged on 02.02.2022 and the charge sheet was filed against Driver- Tejesh Kumar Yadav on 15.03.2022 before Jurisdic- tional Criminal Court Balod. As such, though there is delay in lodging the FIR, but as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Others¹ the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant’s case and their Lordships in paragraph 17, 18 & 19 held as under :

1 (2011) 4 SCC 693

“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