National Insurance Company Ltd v. Shiv Charan And

2. The factual matrix is that on 16.05.2018 at about 11.00 A.M., Gaurav Yadav (deceased) aged about 21 years, was returning from Bharthana, driving his motorcycle No. UP-75-AA-3969, and Snehlata PW-2 was also sitting behind the motorcycle with her eight months old daughter Bitto in her lap, then the above motorcycle was hit by Truck No.UP-75-AT-3049 near Virari Ashram under P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries to Gaurav Yadav, Snehlata and Bitto. Gaurav Yadav was taken to the Government Hospital, Etawah for treatment, where he was declared dead. An FIR regarding the incident was registered by the deceased's maternal uncle Diwan Singh on 01.09.2018 at police station Ikdil, District Etawah being Case Crime No.290 of 2018, under Sections 279, 338, 427, 304 (A) IPC. The deceased was aged about 21 years, was a bachelor and was working as Raw Brick Accountant at KS Brick Kiln and was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. The tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.10,000/- per month, granted future prospect of 50%, deducted 1/2 amount towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 18, awarded Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved against which, the 2 FAFO No. 2457 of 2025 insurance company is in appeal before this Court.

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the accident was doubtful because the FIR was registered belatedly. No independent witness of the accident was examined. He further submitted that since the eye witness Snehlata PW-2 was a pillion rider, she could not have witnessed the registration number of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that her testimony is unreliable. It was also submitted that salary certificate of deceased was not proved, as such, on its basis, no compensation could have been awarded by the tribunal. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

5. According to the claimants, accident took place on 16.05.2018 at about 11.00 A.M. when Gaurav Yadav (deceased) was returning from Bharthana, driving his motorcycle no. UP-75-AA-3969, and Snehlata Yadav PW-2 was also sitting behind the motorcycle with her eight months old daughter Bitto in her lap, then the above motorcycle was hit by the offending Truck No.UP-75-AT-3049, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing grievous injuries to Gaurav Yadav, who died subsequently.

6. Snehlata PW-2, the injured witness, has appeared in the witness box and has proved the factum of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending truck. It is also evident that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending truck appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. The insurance company has also not led any cogent evidence to prove that the accident was caused by some other vehicle. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in registering FIR in motor accident cases, held as under:- "17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the 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 3 FAFO No. 2457 of 2025 in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.

18. 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 scrutinised more carefully. If the 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. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.

19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the 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 a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity 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. In the instant case PW-2 has deposed in the cross examination that her motorcycle No. UP-75-AA-3969 was hit from behind by the offending truck No.UP-75-AT-3049 and after the accident, the truck had fled. It is true that in this case, the FIR was registered on 01.09.2018 against the unknown driver of truck no.UP-75-AT-3049, but only on this ground the accident cannot be termed as doubtful. The FIR discloses that the first informant and his family remained busy in the treatment of Gaurav Yadav, the deceased Bitto as well as Snehlata and after the death of Gaurav and Bitto, the last rites of the deceased were performed due to which the FIR could not be registered promptly.

9. Sufficient explanation for lodging the FIR with delay has been given by the claimants, as such, merely on this ground the accident could not be disbelieved.

10. It is also true that the deceased was aged about 25 years and was working as Raw Brick Accountant at KS Brick Kiln and the claimants submitted his salary certificate. It is true that the salary certificate was not 4 FAFO No. 2457 of 2025 proved, but still keeping in view his educational qualification, his profession and also the minimum wages of skilled labour of Rs.9381.06 per month which were prevalent in the State of U.P. at that time, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of the accident. The tribunal has not awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to the younger sister and brother of the deceased, which is erroneous. In totality, the tribunal has awarded just compensation.

11. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

12. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

13. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is affirmed.

15. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 27, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)

2. The factual matrix is that on 16.05.2018 at about 11.00 A.M., Gaurav Yadav (deceased) aged about 21 years, was returning from Bharthana, driving his motorcycle No. UP-75-AA-3969, and Snehlata PW-2 was also sitting behind the motorcycle with her eight months old daughter Bitto in her lap, then the above motorcycle was hit by Truck No.UP-75-AT-3049 near Virari Ashram under P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries to Gaurav Yadav, Snehlata and Bitto. Gaurav Yadav was taken to the Government Hospital, Etawah for treatment, where he was declared dead. An FIR regarding the incident was registered by the deceased's maternal uncle Diwan Singh on 01.09.2018 at police station Ikdil, District Etawah being Case Crime No.290 of 2018, under Sections 279, 338, 427, 304 (A) IPC. The deceased was aged about 21 years, was a bachelor and was working as Raw Brick Accountant at KS Brick Kiln and was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. The tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.10,000/- per month, granted future prospect of 50%, deducted 1/2 amount towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 18, awarded Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved against which, the 2 FAFO No. 2457 of 2025 insurance company is in appeal before this Court.

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the accident was doubtful because the FIR was registered belatedly. No independent witness of the accident was examined. He further submitted that since the eye witness Snehlata PW-2 was a pillion rider, she could not have witnessed the registration number of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that her testimony is unreliable. It was also submitted that salary certificate of deceased was not proved, as such, on its basis, no compensation could have been awarded by the tribunal. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

5. According to the claimants, accident took place on 16.05.2018 at about 11.00 A.M. when Gaurav Yadav (deceased) was returning from Bharthana, driving his motorcycle no. UP-75-AA-3969, and Snehlata Yadav PW-2 was also sitting behind the motorcycle with her eight months old daughter Bitto in her lap, then the above motorcycle was hit by the offending Truck No.UP-75-AT-3049, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing grievous injuries to Gaurav Yadav, who died subsequently.

6. Snehlata PW-2, the injured witness, has appeared in the witness box and has proved the factum of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending truck. It is also evident that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending truck appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. The insurance company has also not led any cogent evidence to prove that the accident was caused by some other vehicle. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in registering FIR in motor accident cases, held as under:- "17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the 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 3 FAFO No. 2457 of 2025 in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.

18. 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 scrutinised more carefully. If the 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. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.

19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the 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 a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity 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. In the instant case PW-2 has deposed in the cross examination that her motorcycle No. UP-75-AA-3969 was hit from behind by the offending truck No.UP-75-AT-3049 and after the accident, the truck had fled. It is true that in this case, the FIR was registered on 01.09.2018 against the unknown driver of truck no.UP-75-AT-3049, but only on this ground the accident cannot be termed as doubtful. The FIR discloses that the first informant and his family remained busy in the treatment of Gaurav Yadav, the deceased Bitto as well as Snehlata and after the death of Gaurav and Bitto, the last rites of the deceased were performed due to which the FIR could not be registered promptly.

9. Sufficient explanation for lodging the FIR with delay has been given by the claimants, as such, merely on this ground the accident could not be disbelieved.

10. It is also true that the deceased was aged about 25 years and was working as Raw Brick Accountant at KS Brick Kiln and the claimants submitted his salary certificate. It is true that the salary certificate was not 4 FAFO No. 2457 of 2025 proved, but still keeping in view his educational qualification, his profession and also the minimum wages of skilled labour of Rs.9381.06 per month which were prevalent in the State of U.P. at that time, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of the accident. The tribunal has not awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to the younger sister and brother of the deceased, which is erroneous. In totality, the tribunal has awarded just compensation.

11. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

12. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

13. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is affirmed.

15. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 27, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)