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

rd

ON THE 23 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 2738 of 2018 SMT. SUNEETA AND OTHERS Versus BHUPAT SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kuldeep Thapak- Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Jitendra Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for appellants.

Shri Rajesh Gupta- Advocate for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

ORDER This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants–claimants challenging the award dated 28.03.2018 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 400039/2016, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants has been rejected.

2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that at the time of the accident, Hari Singh (who subsequently died after filing the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal) was aged about 40 years and was earning approximately ₹9,000 per month from labour work, agricultural activities, and dairy farming. On 27.10.2015 at about 12:30 p.m., Hari Singh had gone to Kolaras market to purchase certain goods. While he was standing near Manipura Temple on the roadside and talking to one Raghunath, respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. MP67 MB 8672, allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from Dehrada side and struck him, causing grievous injuries and fractures. He was initially given first aid at M.M. Hospital, Shivpuri, and thereafter admitted to the District Hospital, Shivpuri, where surgery was performed and iron rods were inserted in his legs. According to the claimants, he suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. On the basis of the report, Crime No. 529/2015 was registered at Police Station Kolaras, District Shivpuri, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. It was contended that due to the injuries, he suffered financial loss on account of medical treatment, nourishment, attendant charges and loss of income. Consequently, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation.

3. Respondents filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

4. After framing issues and recording evidence, the Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of the material available on record, rejected the claim petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned award is contrary to law, evidence and the material available on record. It was argued that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence establishing that the accident occurred on 27.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle. It was further submitted that since the police registered a case and filed a charge-

sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal ought to have presumed negligence on the part of the driver. The Tribunal, however, overlooked this aspect and erroneously dismissed the claim petition. Hence, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. It was contended that the claimants failed to establish the factum of accident and negligence of the driver by cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

8. It is a settled principle of law that delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal either to a criminal case or to a motor accident claim, provided sufficient and cogent reasons for such delay are satisfactorily explained. 9. 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