IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 6147 of 2024 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Versus KULDEEP SINGH RAJPOOT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ritesh Dubey - Advocate for appellant/Insurance Company.

Shri Surendra Patel - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Reserved on : 01.12.2025 Delivered on : 02.02.2026.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER This miscellaneous appeal has been filed at the instance of the appellant/insurance company of the offending vehicle under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being aggrieved of award dated 22.05.2024 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sehore in Claim Case No.78/2023.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 20.12.2022, claimant/respondent No.1 Kuldeep Singh Rajput was travelling to his village Khamliya with his companion Sohail Mewara at 09:30 p.m., when they reached Village Piliya Jod on Old Sehore-Bhopal National Highway, respondent No.2 by driving the vehicle/car in question bearing No.MP-37-C-1464 at high speed and recklessly came from Sehore side and struck the respondent No.1/claimant from behind. Due to which, he fell down along with the his scooter and suffered injuries on his head, face, mouth and other parts of the body. Thereafter, Deep Batham and Harsh Rathore, who were following the claimant/respondent, took claimant Kuldeep and Sohail Mewara to the District Hospital, Sehore, where they received first aid and thereafter they were referred to Bhopal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the objections raised and documents on record in the right perspective. Learned Tribunal has committed an apparent error of law as well as of facts holding appellant/insurance company liable for excessive amount of compensation because no eye witness has been examined before the Tribunal regarding accident and there is delay in lodging of FIR against the unknown vehicle. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has totally ignored the facts of the claim case and passed excessive award to pay Rs.2,39,000/- which is erroneous and totally perverse and same is liable to be set aside because the alleged offending vehicle was not involved with the accident.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Perused the record as well as impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

7. On perusal of aforesaid, it appears that the miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/insurance company only on the ground of delay in lodging FIR. The facts of the case reveals that the date of accident was 20.12.2022. It has also come on record that the claimant/respondent No.1 remained hospitalized from 20/12/2022 to 02/01/2023 for almost 14 days. In the case in hand, the claimant was admitted to hospital for 14 days, therefore, it amounts to grievous hurt caused to the claimant. Thus, it is clear that the claimant has bona fide reason for lodging the FIR with a delay.

8. With regard to delay in lodging of FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 17, 18, and 19 of the judgment passed in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, (2011) 4 SCC 693, has held as under:-

"17. It is well settled that delay in lodging of 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 mechanicall