Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ambalal Gurjar S/O Ramnarayan vs United India General Insurance Company … on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7974]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1394/2023
Shyam Lal Yadav S/o Dataram Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Shuklawas, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. United India General Insurance Company Ltd., through
Manager, Near Deewan Hotel, Kotputli, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan through Regional Manager, Regional Office,
Transport Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Insurance Company
Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684).
2. M/s Navya Construction, Proprietor Vinod Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Ladali Prasad Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Post Satoha, Goverdhan Road, Mathura, U.P.
Presently R/o Anjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Owner
Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684).
3. Vishnu Kumar S/o Satto, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Kodapura, Thana Gadhi Bajna, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan(Driver Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1202/2023
1. Smt. Jagan Devi W/o Late Gokul Chand Swami, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o Swamipura, Devipura, Tehsil
Shahpura, District Jaipur Presently R/o Dhani Ki Hiroda
Ki, Tan Kansali, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Girraj Swami S/o Late Gokul Chand Swami, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Swamipura, Devipura, Tehsil Shahpura, Dis-
trict Jaipur Presently R/o Dhani Ki Hiroda Ki, Tan Kansali,
Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Krishna Kumar Swami S/o Late Gokul Chand Swami, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Swamipura, Devipura, Tehsil Shah-
pura, District Jaipur Presently R/o Dhani Ki Hiroda Ki, Tan
Kansali, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Smt. Banarasi Devi W/o Late Chothudas Swami, Aged
About 72 Years, R/o Swamipura, Devipura, Tehsil Shah-
pura, District Jaipur Presently R/o Dhani Ki Hiroda Ki, Tan
Kansali, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7974] (2 of 8) [CMA-1394/2023]
—-Appellants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Manager,
Near Deewan Hotel, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Transport
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle
Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684).
2. M/s Navya Construction, Proprietor Vinod Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Ladali Prasad Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Post Satoha, Goverdhan Road, Mathura, U.P.
Presently R/o Anjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Owner
Of Vehicle Trailer No. Rj-05-Gb-6684).
3. Vishnu Kumar S/o Satto, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Kodapura, Thana Gadhi Bajna, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.(Driver Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684).
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1387/2023
Ambalal Gurjar S/o Ramnarayan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Bhojpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Presently R/o Shakti Vihar,
Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
—-Appellant
Versus
1. United India General Insurance Company Ltd., through
Manager, Near Deewan Hotel, Kotputli, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan through Regional Manager, Regional Office
Transport Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Insurance Company
Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684)
2. M/s Navya Construction, Proprietor Vinod Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Ladali Prasad Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Post Satoha, Goverdhan Road, Mathura, U.P.
Presently R/o Anjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Owner
Of Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684)
3. Vishnu Kumar S/o Satto, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Kodapura, Thana Gadhi Bajna, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. (Driver Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684)
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1388/2023
Hariram Gurjar S/o Sojiram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bhojpura,
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7974] (3 of 8) [CMA-1394/2023]
Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan Presently R/o Shakti Vihar,
Kotputli, Rajasthan.
—-Appellant
Versus
1. United India General Insurance Company Ltd., through
Manager, Near Deewan Hotel, Kotputli, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan through Regional Manager, Regional Office
Transport Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Insurance Company
Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684)
2. M/s Navya Construction, Proprietor Vinod Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Ladali Prasad Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Post Satoha, Goverdhan Road, Mathura, U.P.
Presently R/o Anjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Owner
Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684)
3. Vishnu Kumar S/o Satto, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vil-
lage Kodapura, Thana Gadhi Bajna, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. (Driver Of Vehicle Trailer No. RJ-05-GB-6684)
—-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni with
Ms. Shara P. Rajora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal with
Mr. Mihir Jangid
Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal with
Mr. Harshit Mehta
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
19/02/2026
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in
these appeals, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties,
arguments have been heard together and these appeals are de-
cided by this common order.
2. For convenience, the facts narrated in civil misc. appeal No.
1394/2023 is taken into consideration. The instant appeal has
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7974] (4 of 8) [CMA-1394/2023]
been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2023
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kotputali,
District Jaipur in MAC case No. 289/2021 by which the claim peti-
tion submitted by the claimant has been rejected by this common
order.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant (hereinafter re-
ferred to as “claimant”) submits that on 19.12.2020, an accident
was caused by a dumper bearing No. RJ-05-GB-6684 and the
driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle was driving in a rash and
negligent manner wherein Gokul Chand Swami sustained certain
injuries and died on the spot and the injured Shayamlal was ad-
mitted in a hospital where his head was operated and Hariram the
other injured and Ambalal were also admitted in the hospital. The
treatment was provided to them for the injuries sustained by
them. Counsel submits that the report of the aforesaid incident
was lodged on 25.12.2020 and after investigation charge-sheet
was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle for the
offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and thereafter,
all these claim petitions were submitted before the Tribunal seek-
ing suitable amount of compensation by different claimants.
5. Counsel submits that all the four claims have been rejected
by the learned Tribunal on a technical ground of delay of 6 days in
lodging the FIR. Counsel submits that a claim petition cannot be
rejected on a technical ground rather the same should have been
decided on merits by the Tribunal, hence such interference of this
Court is warranted.
6. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respon-
dents oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7974] (5 of 8) [CMA-1394/2023]
and submitted that no justification has been provided for the inor-
dinate delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and the involvement of
the fact is doubtful as the police reached on the spot immediately
after the accident and the said offending vehicle was not seized by
the police. Hence, involvement of the people appears to be doubt-
ful and under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed
an error in rejecting the claim petitions and the same needs no in-
terference of this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be re-
jected.
7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on record.
8. Perusal of the record indicates that the claimant has met
with an accident on 19.12.2020 wherein one person Gokul Chand
Swami (deceased) has sustain certain injuries and he died on the
spot and rest of the injured has sustained injuries and they were
admitted in the hospital for their treatment. This fact is not in dis-
pute that an FIR of the aforesaid incident has been registered af-
ter a delay of 6 days, i.e., 25.12.2020 and this fact is not in dis-
pute that the offending vehicle was also seized on the said day.
9. The Tribunal has recorded a detailed finding about the in-
volvement of the vehicle in question in the aforesaid incident and
was of the view that when the accident occurred and the police
came on the spot, then why the matter was not reported to the
police and why the police has not seized the vehicle immediately
on the spot. On this ground alone, the claim petition submitted by
the claimant has been rejected.
10. In the considered view of this Court, when such unfortunate
incident has occurred wherein one person has lost his eyes and
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7974] (6 of 8) [CMA-1394/2023]
three persons have sustained grievous injuries on their vital parts
of the body, it was not expected from the family members of the
deceased and the injured to lodge an FIR first, and then take their
family members to the hospital to save their lives which is pre-
cious. If the police came on the spot and did not record any inci-
dent in the Rapat Roznamcha and did not take any steps to seize
the vehicle in question, the claimant cannot be blamed for the
same, in case the police has failed to discharge its duties.
11. The niceties and the technicalities of the law with regard to
slight delay in lodging an FIR are not required to be suffered in the
case of accident claim cases. It is well proposition of law that the
claim petition cannot be rejected on the technical ground of slight
delay in lodging the FIR, the claimant belongs to a rural area and
he is not aware about the niceties of the law and more particu-
larly, in a situation where one of the close members of the family
has passed away and the remaining members of the family has
sustained grievous injuries. The delay in lodging the FIR is quite
natural without understanding the consequences of the same.
Thus, on the ground of the delay in lodging the FIR, the claim pe-
tition cannot be rejected.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badri-
narayan and Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226 has taken a
similar view and it has been observed 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 the mind of kith and kin to such an ex-
tent that they give more importance to get the victim(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7974] (7 of 8) [CMA-1394/2023]treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under
such circumstances, they are not expected to act me-
chanically 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 exam-
ine 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 dis-
missed 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 factum of accident
so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensa-
tion but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground
for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, al-
though lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor acci-
dent 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 rea-
sons for it. There could be variety of reasons in gen-
uine 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 as-
sumes much more significance than delay in lodging
thereof supported by cogent reasons.
20. In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as
the High Court, committed grave error in not appreci-
ating the mental agony through which Suresh was
passing, whose son was severely injured. In the light of
the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the MACT as well as High Court committed
error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the FIR
belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim peti-
tion.”
13. Thus in view of the above circumstances and looking to the
proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case
of Ravi (supra), the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7974] (8 of 8) [CMA-1394/2023]
not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set
aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for its fresh adju-
dication on those merits and on the basis of the issues framed
therein, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the respective
parties.
14. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
02.04.2026 and thereafter, on the date fixed by the Tribunal.
15. The instant appeal is partly allowed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Rinchu/PARSHANT /33-36
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:33:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:45:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
