[2026:RJ-JP:6865]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2250/2018

1. Anita Kumari W/o Lajpatram

2. Chanchal D/o Lajpatram

3. Anshu S/o Lajpatram

4. Khusbhoo D/o Lajpatram

5. Kalu Varam S/o Ram Dayal

6. Kishan Pyari W/o Kalu Varam, Appellant No. 2 To 4 Are Minor Through Their Mother And Natural Guardian Anita Kumari W/o Lajpatram All R/o Village Tanda, Police Station Sevar, Distt.

Bharatpur At Present R/o A-37, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur ----Appellants Versus

1. Rajesh S/o Vijay Singh, R/o Village Hantra, Teh. Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur Registered Owner Motor Cycle No. Rj-05-

Sf-7098

2. Tata A.i.g. General Insurance Company Ltd., Having Its Corporate Office At Peninsula Corporate Park, Nicholas Piramal Tower, 9 Th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 Through Its Manager Insurer Motor Cycle No. Rj-05-Sf-7098 ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr.Vinay Mathur with Mr.Ashish Mittal For Respondent(s) : None present JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

12/02/2026

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment and award dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.699/2011 (NCV 1588/2014), by which the claim petition submitted by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as “claimants”) under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been rejected by the Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that in the intervening night of 30/31.03.2010, the deceased-Lajpat Ram was travelling from Pratapnagar to Malviya Nagar on a motor bike bearing No. RJ05 SF 7098 along with his friend Sanjay Singh, but on account of negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, the motor cycle skidded and struck the divider/median due to which he sustained several grievous injuries and subsequently, died during the course of treatment at the SMS Hospital on 23^rd April 2010. Counsel further submits that a report of the same was registered on 23^rd April, 2010 and an FIR was also registered on the same day. Thereafter, a claim petition was submitted under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that while deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal has recorded a negative finding regarding each and every aspect of the matter including the involvement of the vehicle, however, the claim petition has been rejected only on the technical ground that the FIR was registered after a delay of 23 days from the date of the incident. Learned counsel submits that a claim petition cannot be rejected only on this ground and the same has been held by the Apex Court in Ravi Vs. Badri Narayan & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SCC 1226 and Sanju Bai Prajapati & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in (2025) 9 SCC 414

3. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service, to oppose the arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimant.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR bearing No. 283/2010 was registered at the Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur on 23^rd April, 2010 for the incident dated 30^th March 2010, which occurred as the motorcycle skidded and resulted in the death of the deceased-Lajpat Ram.

6. This fact is not in dispute that deceased had sustained several grievous and life threatening injuries in the accident which occurred on 30^th March 2010. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, he remained hospitalised under treatment at SMS hospital till 23^rd April, 2010 when he succumbed to the injuries. Immediately thereafter, the impugned FIR was registered with the concerned Police Station, hence the incident is not disputed and the reason for delay for lodging the FIR is that the deceased remained under treatment at the hospital. In the considered opinion