IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1226 of 2015 RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL Versus VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the appellant/claimant.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

Shri Sooraj Bhan Lodhi- Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

ORDER This appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of the award dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Shivpuri (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.138/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants seeking compensation was rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.02.2013, the appellant was deputed by the Director of the firm to a leased mine for counting and supervising debris tractors. While performing the said duty at about 11:30 a.m., the driver/respondent No.1 of tractor bearing registration No. MP-33A/8651 allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries on the lower part of his body, including bleeding from toe to waist and a fracture of the right hip. The appellant was taken to the hospital and admitted to the District Hospital, Shivpuri. Information regarding the incident was given at the hospital outpost on 18.02.2013. On the basis of the report submitted by the appellant, a First Information Report bearing Crime No.106/2013 was registered at Police Station Mayapur under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.1, Vijay Singh, before the competent Court.

3. Respondents filed their written statements before the Claims Tribunal. After framing the issues and recording evidence, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal contending that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is arbitrary and contrary to law. It was submitted that the police registered the case and filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, but the Claims Tribunal ignored this material evidence and rejected the claim petition solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Hence, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

7. 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