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

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 1294 of 2024 NATIONALINSURANCE COMPANY LTD Versus SMT SUNITA YADAV AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ram Vilas Sharma - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Sri Ashfaq Khan-Advocate for respondent Nos 1 to 3/claimants.

ORDER This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company challenging the award dated 13/09/2023 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, District Datia (M.P.) in Claim Case No.604/2021, whereby the claim Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21/01/2021 at about 6:00 p.m., deceased Dinesh Yadav was returning from Jhansi on his motorcycle. When he reached Katili Tiraha, respondent No.4, driving Omni car bearing registration No. MP07 BA 1488 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle from behind. As a result of the accident, Dinesh Yadav sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the hospital. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 29/01/2021.

3. Thereafter, claimants filed claim petition for seeking compensation.

Appellant and respondent No.4 filed written statement denying all averments.

4. After framing issues and recording evidence, the Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the material available on record, Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of claimants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contended that the impugned award is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the oral and documentary evidence and erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. It is further contended that the accident occurred on 21/01/2021 whereas the FIR was lodged on 26/03/2021 after a delay of about two months, and such delay was not properly explained. It is also contended that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were relatives of the deceased and there was collusion between them and the claimants to falsely implicate the offending vehicle for obtaining compensation. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record.

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

8. The first contention of the appellant is that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were relatives of the deceased and there was collusion. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the cross-examination of Sunita (A.W.1), wherein she admitted that her nephew’s name is also Akhilesh Yadav. However, she did not admit that the owner or driver of the offending vehicle was her relative. Except for the fact that they belong to the same caste, no documentary or substantive evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to establish close relationship or collusion. Mere similarity of caste does not establish relationship. Thus, the plea of collusion remains unsubstantiated.

9. The next contention relates to delay in lodging the FIR.

10. It is true that the accident occurred on 21/01/2021 and the FIR was registered on 26/03/2021. However, the record reveals that immediately after the accident, the deceased was admitted for treatment and unfortunately expired on 29/01/2021. Information (Ex.P/7) was given by the emergency consultant to Police Station Kampoo, whereupon marg intimation (Ex.P/6) was registered on 30/01/2021. The matter was thereafter forwarded to the concerned Police Station Jigana, District Datia, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle.

11. It is a settled principle of law that delay in lodging an FIR is no