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

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 3053 of 2017 KHUMAN PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Versus RAKESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjeev Tiwari-Advocate for appellants/claimants.

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal-Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

ORDER

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the award dated 10/08/2017 passed by the First Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”), Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 26/2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.2014 at about 12:00 noon, deceased Sangeeta was travelling on a motorcycle from village Lauch to village Kitora along with her nephew, Mangal Prajapati. When they reached ahead of Mehgaon, a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07-MM-9768 coming from the opposite direction at high speed allegedly dashed against their motorcycle. Due to the impact, Sangeeta fell down and sustained serious head injuries. She was taken for treatment but succumbed to her injuries on 19.09.2014 at about 6:10 PM. A report was lodged at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. The driver and owner were proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company filed written statements denying the allegations.

4. After framing issues and recording evidence of both parties, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle was not proved.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants/claimants has preferred this appeal contending that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to law and principles of justice and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that police registered a criminal case and filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle that once a charge-sheet is filed, the Claims Tribunal may presume negligence of the driver. but Tribunal erred in disbelieving the involvement of the offending vehicle. Hence, it is prayed that impugned award be set-aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

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 to a criminal case or a motor accident claim, provided sufficient and cogent reasons for such delay are satisfactorily explained.

9. 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 required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or eng