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. 3982 of 2018 SMT. GEETA DEVI AND OTHERS Versus SUNEEL DIXIT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjveev Tiwari- Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 18.05.2018 passed by the 17th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No.11/2015, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants has been rejected the Claims Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.09.2014, Tirath Kumar Savita met with a fatal road accident while returning home, when a Vikram Loading vehicle bearing No. MP-07-L-2532, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 and owned by non-applicant No.2, struck him near Sumit Namkeen shop. He sustained serious injuries, was admitted to J.A.H. Government Hospital, and succumbed to his injuries on 22.09.2014 during treatment. The incident was registered at Police Station Inderganj and, upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the concerned driver before the competent Court. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. Respondents filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in dismissing the compensation claim without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is contended that the Court below erred in not accepting the deceased’s monthly income as Rs.15,000 and in not applying the appropriate multiplier of 15 considering the age of the deceased, resulting in serious under-assessment of loss of income and future prospects. It is further submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded under the heads of medical expenses, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of love and affection. Learned counsel further argues that the Court below wrongly failed to hold that the accident occurred due to the offending loading vehicle bearing No. MP-07-L-2532 despite cogent documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony. Hence, the impugned award is contrary to law and evidence and deserves to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposed the appeal and supported the impugned award and also prayed for rejection of the appeal.

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

6. On perusal of the record, it is found that the accident occurred on

17.09.2014 and the deceased died on 22.09.2014. Dr. Nitin Dwivedi informed the police telephonically that the deceased had come to the hospital for treatment after sustaining injuries in an accident and that he died during treatment on 22.09.2014. The police registered a Merg (Exhibit P-8) and, after inquiry, registered an FIR (Exhibit P-2) on 04.10.2014.

7. It is true that if the claimants have been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for delay in lodging the FIR, such delay should not be treated as fatal to the proceedings.

8. 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 tre