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. 1293 of 2016 AHIRVARNATH Versus RAMKUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok - Advocate on behalf of Shri Pankaj Shrivastava. Shri Badri Nath Malhotra- Advocate for the 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 20.06.2016 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 400135/2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2014 at about 9:00 a.m., the claimant allegedly sustained injuries when a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-07/MM-9633, driven rashly and negligently, hit him while he was standing on the roadside in front of his house. He is stated to have suffered a fracture of his right leg and other injuries and was taken to Government Hospital, Morar for treatment. An FIR was registered at Morar Police Station and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. The non-applicants filed their written statements denying all the averments made in the claim petition.

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

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the impugned award is contrary to law, record, and evidence. It is argued that the Claims Tribunal ignored the oral and documentary evidence proving that the accident occurred on 28.03.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle. It is further contended that FIR, charge-sheet, and medical documents establish the accident and involvement of the vehicle. It is also submitted that the claimant is a rural and uneducated person who suffered serious and permanent injuries, which were ignored by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned award.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the 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 the FIR cannot by itself be a ground to reject a claim petition, provided the claimant is able to furnish a satisfactory and cogent explanation for such delay. It is also settled that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle raises a presumption regarding the occurrence of the accident, subject to proof.

9. In the present case, the alleged accident occurred on 28.03.2014, whereas the FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged on 30.03.2014. The MLC (Ex.P-2) was prepared on 31.03.2014, and the X-ray report (Ex.P-3) was prepared on 02.04.2014. On careful scrutiny of the documents filed by claimant before the Claims Tribunal, it is evident that the claimant failed to produce any medical treatment slip showing that he received treatment between

28.03.2014 and 30.03.2014.

10. 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