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

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 947 of 2017 SHAMSHER KHAN Versus MATACHARAN RAWAT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shankar Dhingra - Advocate for the appellant.

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

ORDER

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the award dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”), District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 800108/2016, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.04.2015 at about 6:00 p.m., claimant was standing on the left side of the road near Mohana, District Gwalior, with his motorcycle stopped to cross the road, when a Nano car bearing registration No. MP-33-C-2401, allegedly driven rashly and at high speed by non-applicant No.1, hit him. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture of the left hip joint and other grievous injuries and was taken to Sarvodaya Hospital. An FIR was registered at Police Station Mohana. The offending vehicle was seized, non-applicant No.1 was arrested, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance, while non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company filed its reply denying the claim.

3. After framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal contending that the award is contrary to settled principles of law. It is submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, despite oral and documentary evidence establishing rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1. It is further contended that the claimant had informed Police Station Mohana on the date of the accident itself, i.e., 20.04.2015, by way of a written application, which was ignored by the Claims Tribunal. It is also argued that non-appearance of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal warranted an adverse inference. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant, a 60-year-old agriculturist and labourer earning about ₹12,000 per month, sustained serious injuries, underwent surgery, suffered prolonged pain and loss of income, yet only ₹59,000/- was assessed under all heads, which is grossly inadequate. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposed the appeal and prayed for its dismissal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire 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 exam