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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1038 of 2016 SMT. MALADEVI AND OTHERS Versus LALU @ RAVINDRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 14.07.2016 passed by the Seventh Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”), District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 192/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.07.2014 at about 3–4 p.m., Ramesh Singh, after threshing mustard at village Para, was returning to his village Kamai when, upon reaching Soi Road near Para, he was hit from behind by jeep bearing registration No. MP-30-D-0253, which was being driven rashly and negligently. He sustained serious injuries and subsequently died during treatment. Thereafter, FIR was registered at Police Station Ater against the driver of the offending vehicle. He was arrested and charge-

sheeted. The claimants (appellants herein) filed a claim petition seeking compensation. Respondents (non-claimants therein) filed their written statements and denied all claim averments made in the claim petition.

3. After framing the issues and recording evidence of both the parties, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal contending that the impugned award dated 14.07.2016 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to law and principles of justice and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record and erroneously dismissed the claim of the appellants in toto. The evidence clearly established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, resulting in the death of Ramesh Singh, but the same was ignored. The learned Tribunal further committed a legal error in wrongly assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- and in not awarding any compensation to the appellants for loss of dependency, consortium, and mental agony suffered due to the untimely death of the deceased. The claim was rejected by misinterpreting evidence and ignoring the FIR and charge- sheet on record, leading to grave miscarriage of justice. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and prayed for rejection of this misc. appeal.

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

7. It is settled principle of law that delay in filing the FIR is not fatal either in criminal case or in claim case provided that sufficient and cogent reason for delay in filing the FIR is given.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others, AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20 & 21 in para 20 & 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 r