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. 1292 of 2016 BABU SINGH NARWARIYA AND OTHERS Versus PREETAM BAREDA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok on behalf of Shri Pankaj Shrivastava- Advocate for the appellants.

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

ORDER This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 12.05.2016 passed by the 7th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.189/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.04.2014, Dharmendra sustained serious injuries in a road accident involving a motorcycle and a Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. MP-07/BA-2638. He was immediately taken for treatment but succumbed to his injuries on 10.04.2014. The information regarding the accident was reported at Police Station Ater, where initially merg intimation was recorded. After completion of enquiry, FIR was registered on 29.05.2014 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 No. 1 and 2 failed to appear before the Tribunal despite service of notice, and ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. The Insurance Company filed its 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/claimants submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and evidence available on record. It was contended that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants. The appellants clearly proved that the accident occurred on 02.04.2014 and that Dharmendra Singh died due to injuries sustained in the said accident. The involvement of vehicle No. MP-07-BA- 2638 was duly established through FIR, charge sheet and other police documents, but Claims Tribunal did not consider this fact. Such a minor discrepancy cannot override the documentary evidence proving the accident and death. It was also contended that the Court wrongly relied upon the defence raised by the Insurance Company while ignoring the reliable evidence adduced by the appellants. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the appellants be granted just compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposed the appeal and supported the impugned award, submitting that the claimants failed to prove negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle by cogent and reliable evidence.

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

6. 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.

7. 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 deny