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

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 389 of 2018 SUNIL PAL Versus GAJENDRA SINGH LODHI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent Insurance Company.

Shri Rishikesh Bohare- Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

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 01.11.2017 passed by the 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No.1800083/2016, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.2015 at about 7:00 p.m., while the claimant along with his father Komal Pal and Shishupal was waiting for a bus near Narain Purva School, Village Sila Nagar, Police Station Amola, District Shivpuri, a tractor bearing registration No. MP-33-AB-0853 was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit them, causing grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant suffered a head fracture and multiple injuries and was treated at Karera, Shivpuri and Gwalior hospitals. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Amola and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.

3. The respondents filed their written statements denying all the averments made in the claim petition.

4. After framing of 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/claimant has preferred the present appeal contending that the Claims Tribunal committed a grave legal error in dismissing the claim application by erroneously holding that the accident was not proved, without proper and minute appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. It was submitted that respondent No.1, by driving the tractor bearing registration No. MP-33-AB-0853 in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident resulting in fracture of the skull and serious injuries to the left hand and other parts of the appellant’s body. It was further contended that after due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against respondent No.1, which prima facie established the occurrence of the accident, but the said material was ignored by the Claims Tribunal. It was also submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained, as the appellant was under prolonged medical treatment from 25.05.2015 to 16.06.2015 at Gwalior Hospital, and therefore rejection of the claim petition on this ground was unsustainable. It was further argued that the appellant, who was a student at the time of the accident, suffered 25% permanent disability of the left hand and underwent surgery and prolonged treatment, resulting in mental, physical and financial hardship. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned award.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 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. Claimant contended that the FIR was lodged on 20.06.2015, whereas the accident occurred on 24.05.2015. He submitted that it is a settled principle of law that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal either in a criminal case or in a claim case, provided sufficient and cogent reasons for delay in lodging the FIR are given.

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 conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and fami