[2026:RJ-JP:5937]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 111/2020 Khawaju Khan S/o Jumma Khan, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Dara Mata Ji, Indragarh, Distt. Bundi (Raj)

----Appellant Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Top Circle, Bundi Distt. Bundi (Raj) (Insurer Motor Cycle No.

Rj-26-Sl-7076)

2. Niraj Kumar Jangid S/o Ramswaroop Jangid, B/c Jangid,r/o Khajura, Tehsil Nainwa, Distt. Bundi (Raj)

(Driver Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sl-7076)

3. Ram Rai Jangid S/o Ladu Lal, B/c Jangid, R/o Bosariya Tehsil Uniyara,distt. Tonk (Raj) (Owner Motor Cycle No.

Rj-26-Sl-7076)

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

09/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Motor Ac- cident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Bundi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 421/2017 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (for short, ‘claimant’) has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the claimant submits that on 25.04.2017 the claimant was walking back from Bad Chauraha to his home in Dara Mataji when a motor bike bearing No. RJ26-SL-7076, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 2, struck the claimant causing an accident wherein the claimant suf- fered a fracture on his left leg. Counsel submits that the claimant remained hospitalized till 30.04.2017 and after discharge from the hospital, the FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 01.05.2017. Counsel submits that the claimant submitted a claim petition against the respondents seeking suitable amount of enhancement, however, the same was rejected by the Tribunal on two technical points - (i) Delay in lodging the FIR and; (ii) in the medical docu- ments the word “Road Traffic Accident” (RTA) was not mentioned. Counsel submits that on these technical counts, the claim petition seeking compensation cannot be rejected in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badri-

narayan and Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SCC 1226

3. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that the police had taken the claimant to the hospital on the day of the accident. Counsel submits that neither the claimant nor the Police had lodged the FIR of the al- leged incident on that day, hence under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim peti- tion submitted by the claimant and interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and pe-

rused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that as per the FIR lodged by the claimant on 01.05.2017, the accident occurred on 25.04.2017 and it has been alleged in the FIR that on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor bike, the accident had occurred and the claimant resultantly suffered multiple injuries and also frac- tured his leg. This fact is not in dispute that FIR was not regis- tered on the same day of accident and it was registered later on 01.05.2017 i.e. after a delay of six days from the date of the acci- dent. This fact is not in dispute that the claimant remained under treatment at the hospital w.e.f. 25.04.2017 till 30.04.2017 and thereafter, after being discharged from the hospital the FIR was registered on the next day i.e. on 01.05.2017. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Badrinarayan (supra) has taken a similar view in para Nos.17, 18, 19 and 20, which reads as under:

“17. 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 com- mon man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsi- bilities occupy