IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 19 OF DECEMBER, 2025

MISC. APPEAL No. 420 of 2009

AWDHESH KUMAR

Versus

JAGDISH PRASAD GURJAR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri B.D.Verma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri B.K.Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

ORDER account of the injuries, appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short, “the MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellant–claimant against the impugned award dated 18/12/2008 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaura District Morena (for short, “the Claims Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.19/2007, whereby the claim petition

filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the MV Act was dismissed.

(2) In brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 31/12/2004, at

approximately 8:30 PM, the appellant was traveling in respondent No. 1's car bearing registration No. RJ 11 C 1077 towards Dholpur. As they reached Ondela Road, respondent No. 2, driving the car rashly and negligently, collided with a culvert and the vehicle overturned, resulting in a fracture of the patella bone in the appellant's right leg and other serious and grievous injuries to his body. Thereafter, he lodged FIR against driver of the offending vehicle. On

166 of the MV Act seeking compensation before the Claims Tribunal.

(3) Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments.

(4) Upon considering the pleadings and evidence of both parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and, after evaluating the material available on record, dismissed the claim petition of the appellant by the impugned award.

(5) Aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the Claims Tribunal committed error not to hold that the accident occurred in the manner alleged by appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant duly proved his case through cogent evidence; however, the Tribunal erroneously rejected his version. Accordingly, the appellant prays that the impugned award be set aside and just compensation be awarded.

(6) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3–Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

(7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the Claims Tribunal.

(8) It is true that if the claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. then delay in lodging F.I.R. should not be treated as fatal for such proceeding. The Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20 and 21 has held 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 mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.

21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate inv