IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 17 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 800 of 2011 JITENDRA Versus LALU @ HIRENDRA RAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma - Advocate for appellant.

None for the respondent.

ORDER The present appeal has been preferred taking exception to the provisions of Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby award dated 29/11/2010 passed in Case No. 6 of 2008 by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla has been challenged. By the impugned order dated 29/11/2010, the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal are as under: The appellant/injured is seven years boy Jitendra Maravi and the application for compensation has been filed through his father Tulsiram Maravi. An application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed claiming Rs.9,00,000/- for the accidental injuries sustained in an accident caused on 25/04/2007 at 8 pm. As per the claim application, the appellant was standing near a house then the respondent No.1, while driving TVS Motor Cycle No. MP 18 BA/5696 in rush and negligent manner had dashed the appellant. Due to the accident, the claimant has sustained various injuries including factures in right femur and right tibia fibula bone. It was also claimed in the application that 22% disability has occurred.

3. The respondent No.2 remained ex-parte and respondent No.1 has appeared by filing reply to the application. In the reply, all the averments made in the application were denied and the factum of causing any accident has also been denied. A prayer has been made for rejection of the claim application. After framing the issues, the case was set down for evidence. The learned claims Tribunal vide its order dated 29/11/2010 has dismissed the claim on the ground of delay in lodging of FIR in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order was challenged on the grounds that Tribunal has not considered the oral evidence and medical documents while passing the impugned award. It is further argued that the claim cannot be rejected only on the ground of non- mentioning of accident in MLC. The bed head ticket and outdoor ticket cannot be a ground for rejection. It is further argued that delay in lodging of FIR is not a ground to dismiss the claim case. Hence, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and a suitable compensation be awarded.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. It is settled principle of law that delay in lodging of FIR in cases of personal injury cannot be a sole ground for rejecting a claim, especially when the occurrence of the accident is corroborated by medical and eyewitness testimony. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that procedural delays, particularly in cases where the victim is undergoing medical treatment, must be viewed pragmatically rather than technically.

7. Reference at this stage can be made in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, 2011(4) SCC 693, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has conclusively held that delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be deemed fatal to claim proceedings, provided the claimant satisfactorily explain the delay with cogent and reasonable grounds. The relevant extracts of the case (supra)

is reproduced as under:-

"20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging 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 FAO-2584-2006 (O&M) -13- mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Polic