Sonu Kumar and others v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others), whereby for the untimely death o

Company Ltd. and others), whereby for the untimely death of Smt. Guddo Devi in a motor accident that occurred on 01.02.2020, a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to claimants and the appellant, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, has been ordered to indemnify it.

2. Factual matrix is that on 01.02.2020 at about 2:30 p.m., Smt. Guddo Devi (deceased) along with her son Sunil was waiting by the road side in village Hidramai, within the jurisdiction of police station Gangiri, District Aligarh for a conveyance, then suddenly a cow came in front of offending motorcycle No.U.P.-81-CH-9482 and in order to save the cow, the driver of the motorcycle lost control of the offending vehicle, which subsequently slipped and hit Smt. Guddo Devi, due to which, she suffered grievous injuries, who was taken to the J.N. Medical College, Aligarh for treatment, where she died. An information regarding the above incident was given to police station Gangiri on 20.02.2020. The deceased was about 50 years old, who was a house wife. The Tribunal keeping in view that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has awarded a fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @7% per annumto the claimants, aggrieved against which, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal. 2 FAFO No. 2450 of 2025

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has submitted that the accident is wholly doubtful because the information was given to police station Gangiri after about 20 days. There was no independent eye witness of the accident. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was taken in an ambulance to the hospital, but neither in the information memo prepared on the basis of the information provided by the ambulance driver nor in the hospital papers, the number of offending vehicle has not been disclosed, which has been subsequently involved. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above facts, since the accident was doubtful, the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed with the appeal.

5. 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 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 3 FAFO No. 2450 of 2025 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."

6. The appellant has filed the copy of the G.D. entry No.54 dated 01.02.2020, 21:28 hours of police station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, which discloses that the deceased Guddo Devi was brought to the JN Medical College, Aligarh in a dead condition on 01.02.2020 at 7:00 p.m. by Kaushal Babu. It is apparent that Kaushal Babu is not an eye witness of the accident and the above information simply discloses that the deceased was brought to the hospital in a dead condition.

7. From the papers submitted by the appellant, it is evident that the P anchayatnama of the deceased was conducted on 02.02.2020 from 8:30 a.m. till 9:30 a.m. at J.N. Medical College, Aligarh. In the opinion of the panches, she died due to injuries sustained in the road accident. The appellant has also filed a record of J.N. Medical College, Aligarh, which discloses that on 01.02.2020 at 7:00 p.m. Guddo Devi was brought dead and it was communicated to the police station Civil Lines, Aligarh.

8. The appellant has also submitted a copy of the General Diary entry No.24 dated 20.02.2020 at 14:33 hours of Police Station Gangiri, District Aligarh, which states that on 01.02.2020 at about 2:30 p.m., Smt. Guddo Devi, along with her son Sunil, was standing by the roadside in village Hidramai, within the jurisdiction of the said police station, waiting for a conveyance, then in an attempt to avoid hitting some cows on the road, a motorcycle bearing registration number U.P.-81-CH-9482 slipped and hit Smt. Guddo Devi, causing her grievous injuries. She later succumbed to those injuries while undergoing treatment at J.N. Medical College, Aligarh. The entry further mentions that the incident occurred accidentally and without fault on the part of any individual.

9. It is also apparent that the owner of the offending motorcycle Abhishek Raj and driver Shishupal in their written statement submitted before the Tribunal, have accepted that the accident occurred when the driver tried to save cow due to which he lost control and the motorcycle slipped, hitting Guddo Devi, who at that time was standing by the road side. It is also apparent that the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove that Smt. Guddo Devi suffered injuries otherwise. In the absence of any contra evidence and keeping in view the admission of the owner and driver of the offending motorcycle, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that Smt. Guddo Devi was indeed hit by the offending motorcycle on 01.02.2020.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 4 FAFO No. 2450 of 2025

12. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2025 is affirmed.

13. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 27, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)

Company Ltd. and others), whereby for the untimely death of Smt. Guddo Devi in a motor accident that occurred on 01.02.2020, a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to claimants and the appellant, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, has been ordered to indemnify it.

2. Factual matrix is that on 01.02.2020 at about 2:30 p.m., Smt. Guddo Devi (deceased) along with her son Sunil was waiting by the road side in village Hidramai, within the jurisdiction of police station Gangiri, District Aligarh for a conveyance, then suddenly a cow came in front of offending motorcycle No.U.P.-81-CH-9482 and in order to save the cow, the driver of the motorcycle lost control of the offending vehicle, which subsequently slipped and hit Smt. Guddo Devi, due to which, she suffered grievous injuries, who was taken to the J.N. Medical College, Aligarh for treatment, where she died. An information regarding the above incident was given to police station Gangiri on 20.02.2020. The deceased was about 50 years old, who was a house wife. The Tribunal keeping in view that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has awarded a fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @7% per annumto the claimants, aggrieved against which, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal. 2 FAFO No. 2450 of 2025

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has submitted that the accident is wholly doubtful because the information was given to police station Gangiri after about 20 days. There was no independent eye witness of the accident. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was taken in an ambulance to the hospital, but neither in the information memo prepared on the basis of the information provided by the ambulance driver nor in the hospital papers, the number of offending vehicle has not been disclosed, which has been subsequently involved. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above facts, since the accident was doubtful, the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed with the appeal.

5. 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 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 3 FAFO No. 2450 of 2025 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."

6. The appellant has filed the copy of the G.D. entry No.54 dated 01.02.2020, 21:28 hours of police station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, which discloses that the deceased Guddo Devi was brought to the JN Medical College, Aligarh in a dead condition on 01.02.2020 at 7:00 p.m. by Kaushal Babu. It is apparent that Kaushal Babu is not an eye witness of the accident and the above information simply discloses that the deceased was brought to the hospital in a dead condition.

7. From the papers submitted by the appellant, it is evident that the P anchayatnama of the deceased was conducted on 02.02.2020 from 8:30 a.m. till 9:30 a.m. at J.N. Medical College, Aligarh. In the opinion of the panches, she died due to injuries sustained in the road accident. The appellant has also filed a record of J.N. Medical College, Aligarh, which discloses that on 01.02.2020 at 7:00 p.m. Guddo Devi was brought dead and it was communicated to the police station Civil Lines, Aligarh.

8. The appellant has also submitted a copy of the General Diary entry No.24 dated 20.02.2020 at 14:33 hours of Police Station Gangiri, District Aligarh, which states that on 01.02.2020 at about 2:30 p.m., Smt. Guddo Devi, along with her son Sunil, was standing by the roadside in village Hidramai, within the jurisdiction of the said police station, waiting for a conveyance, then in an attempt to avoid hitting some cows on the road, a motorcycle bearing registration number U.P.-81-CH-9482 slipped and hit Smt. Guddo Devi, causing her grievous injuries. She later succumbed to those injuries while undergoing treatment at J.N. Medical College, Aligarh. The entry further mentions that the incident occurred accidentally and without fault on the part of any individual.

9. It is also apparent that the owner of the offending motorcycle Abhishek Raj and driver Shishupal in their written statement submitted before the Tribunal, have accepted that the accident occurred when the driver tried to save cow due to which he lost control and the motorcycle slipped, hitting Guddo Devi, who at that time was standing by the road side. It is also apparent that the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove that Smt. Guddo Devi suffered injuries otherwise. In the absence of any contra evidence and keeping in view the admission of the owner and driver of the offending motorcycle, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that Smt. Guddo Devi was indeed hit by the offending motorcycle on 01.02.2020.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 4 FAFO No. 2450 of 2025

12. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2025 is affirmed.

13. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 27, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)