Madhya Pradesh High Court
The New India Assurance vs Sonu on 17 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765
1 MA-3034-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 3034 of 2021
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
Versus
SONU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri Sudesh Kumar Singh- Advocate for respondent Nos.1 &
2/Claimants.
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Kori- Advocate for respondent Nos.3 &
4./Driver & Owner.
ORDER
This misc. appeal by the Insurance Company u/S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is arising out of the Award dated 17.09.2021 passed by Additional MACT to the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short "Claims Tribunal") Lahar, District- Bhind (M.P.) in MACC No.07/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,40,950/- with interest in favour of claimants (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) from the date of filing of claiming petition till its realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2017, when Gurusharan (since deceased) was going on his cycle towards petrol pump for some work, at the same time, Vinod Kumar Soni, by driving his motorcycle bearing Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765 2 MA-3034-2021 registration number MP 07-MZ-0339 in rash and negligent manner hit him, as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and thereafter, he was admitted to Relief Hospital, Gwalior and during treatment, he succumbed to injuries. A report of the incident was lodged by son of deceased- Sonu at Police Station- Daboh, on the basis of which, police registered a case vide Crime No.32/17 against the driver of offending vehicle under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Due to death of deceased Gurusharan, his legal representatives, i.e. son and wife have filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal vide impugned Award awarded compensation in favour of claimants, as stated above.
3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned Award, the instant misc. appeal has been filed by Insurance Company with submissions that the owner of offending vehicle Registration No.MP 07 MZ 0339 is in hand in glove with the claimants and the claimants have conspired the insured vehicle after delay of more than two months of the accident to get the compensation from the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal has committed an error in fixing liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. It is further contended that the claimants' witnesses Sonu (AW-1) & Lalta Prasad (AW-2) in their statement before the police recorded under Section 161 of CrPC stated that Karu @ Naresh has caused the accident and thereafter, they changed their version by deposing that Vinod Kumar Soni - driver of insured vehicle, has caused the alleged Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765 3 MA-3034-2021 accident. The Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned Award without going thoroughly through the evidence of the witnesses and has committed an error in awarding the compensation in favour of the claimants. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned Award.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned Award and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Award as well as record of the Claims Tribunal.
6. The only question for determination of this appeal is as to whether driver of offending vehicle was falsely planted in the accident to get compensation amount by the claimants from the Insurance Company or not?
7. It is true that if the claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. then delay in lodging F.I.R. should not be treated as fatal for such proceeding. 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 justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765 4 MA-3034-2021
21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
8. It reveals from the present case that accident occurred on 10.02.2017 and deceased was died on 26.02.2017. According to PM Report (ExP-3) it was mentioned that that deceased was died due to accident, however neither registration of offending vehicle nor the name of the offending vehicle was mentioned in PM Report. On perusal of the case history of deceased from Relief Hospital (Ex.P-9) from the date of admission of deceased to his death (13.02.2017 to 26.02.2017) neither registration of offending vehicle nor the name of the offending vehicle was mentioned. In lash naksha panchayatnama which was prepared on 25.02.2017 (Ex.P-
13), neither registration of offending vehicle nor the name of the offending vehicle was mentioned. It is clear that accident occurred on 10.02.2017 and deceased was died on 25.02.2017 and police received the information on 26.02.2017. Thereafter, registered merg report (Ex.P-10) but police has not started inquiry after receiving the information of death of the deceased on 26.02.2017. On perusal of the record of the tribunal, it was found that on 15.04.2017, Sonu- son of the deceased who was examined as AW-1, gave Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765 5 MA-3034-2021 application before police station Ex.D-1 and mentioned that Lalta Prasad and Lakhan Kushwah gave and information that Karu @ Naresh caused the accident and after inquiry he changed the version that Vinod Kumar Soni has caused the accident who was driving the alleged motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP 07 MZ 0339.
9. Sonu (AW-1) son of deceased, has not revealed that how and which manner he found that Vinod Kumar Soni was driving the alleged vehicle and caused the accident. However, Sonu (AW-1), who is not the eye-witness, has clearly stated in his cross-examination that Lalta Prasad (AW-2) informed him about the alleged accident by phone.
10. Now, it has to be seen whether deposition of aforesaid witnesses inspire confidence to overlook the documents prepared by the prosecution during investigation and relied by the claimants to establish the alleged accident which shows that the dead body of deceased was found by the side of the road and no mention of the vehicle which had caused accident with the deceased.
11. Sonu (AW-1) son of deceased, who is not the eye-witness, has clearly stated in his cross-examination that Lalta Prasad (AW-2) informed him about the alleged accident by phone. He has stated before the police under Section 161 of CrPC (Ex.P17) that accident was caused by Karu @ Naresh and after some time, he got the information that Vinod Kumar Soni was driving the offending vehicle and had caused the alleged accident. But, he has not revealed the source, from where he got this information that instead of Karu @ Naresh, Vinod Kumar Soni has caused the alleged Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765 6 MA-3034-2021 accident.
12. Lalta Prasad (AW-2) has stated in his cross-examination that on 10.02.2017 at around 10.30 AM, when he reached near petrol pump, he saw that Gurusharan was going on cycle towards Gora. Meanwhile, Vinod Kumar Soni was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.MP 07 MZ 0339 in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed deceased- Gurushan . He took Gurushan to hospital where he succumbed to injuries. He has also gave statement before the police under Section 161 of CrPC (Ex.P18) that accident was caused by Karu @ Naresh and thereafter, he changed his version that Vinod Kumar has caused the accident. In cross-examination, Lalta Prasad has accepted that he know the Vinod Kumar Soni as Vinod used to come Daboh regularly. So, if Lalta Prasad (AW-2) knew Vinod Kumar Soni before the accident, then why he has not identified that at the time of accident, Vinod Kumar was driving the alleged vehicle. Therefore, his statement is contradictory from the earlier statement given by him before the police as his statement is not satisfactory regarding explanation of alleged accident as he has stated that Karu @ Naresh was driving the alleged vehicle and thereafter, changed his version that Vinod Kumar Soni was driving the alleged vehicle and caused the accident.
13. It is true that if police filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, then the Claims Tribunal presumes the guilt of driver of the offending vehicle, but this presumption is rebuttable in evidence.
14. In the present case, alleged accident was occurred on 10.02.2017 and the FIR was lodged on 16.04.2017. So, it was the duty of the claimants Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765 7 MA-3034-2021 to explain the delay in lodging the FIR and also to reveal the source that offending vehicle was being driven by Vinod Kumar. But, considering the evidence of Sonu (AW-1) & Lalta Prasad (AW-2), their evidence is contradictory to the earlier statement given before the police under Section 161 of CrPC as they have firstly stated that Karu @ Naresh was driving the motorcycle who is responsible for the alleged accident, but later on, they changed their version by stating that Vinod Kumar was driving the motorcycle who is responsible for the alleged accident.
15. The version of both these witnesses is contradictory, which creates a doubt and does not inspire confidence, coupled with the fact that there is a long delay in lodging the FIR, so in view of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the statements of witnesses i.e. Sonu (AW-1) & Lalta Prasad (AW-2) does not inspire confidence that Vinod Kumar Soni was driving the offending vehicle and has caused the alleged accident. Whatever may be the cause for planting the vehicle, but the practice of claimants to plant the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company with the help of owner of vehicle is highly deprecated and strict action is called for against such persons.
16. In view of foregoing reasons and discussions, the claimants- respondent No. 1 to 2 have utterly failed to prove that the alleged accident was caused by driver - Vinod Kumar Soni by driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 07 MZ 0339 which was insured with the Insurance Company to get compensation amount by them from the Insurance Company.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22765 8 MA-3034-2021
17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal dated 17.09.2021 in Claim Case No.07/2018 is hereby set aside.
18. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent to the Claims Tribunal for necessary information and compliance.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *VJ* Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 9/23/2025 4:08:13 PM