Khawaju Khan S/O Jumma Khan Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:5937]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 111/2020

¶4

Khawaju Khan S/o Jumma Khan, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Dara Mata Ji, Indragarh, Distt. Bundi (Raj)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Top Circle, Bundi Distt. Bundi (Raj) (Insurer Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sl-7076)

¶8

Niraj Kumar Jangid S/o Ramswaroop Jangid, B/c Jangid,r/o Khajura, Tehsil Nainwa, Distt. Bundi (Raj) (Driver Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sl-7076)

¶9

Ram Rai Jangid S/o Ladu Lal, B/c Jangid, R/o Bosariya Tehsil Uniyara,distt. Tonk (Raj) (Owner Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sl-7076)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Ram Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vimal Kumar Yadav

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

09/02/2026

¶15

By way of filing the instant appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Bundi (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 421/2017 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (for short, ‘claimant’) has been rejected.

¶16

Counsel for the claimant submits that on 25.04.2017 the claimant was walking back from Bad Chauraha to his home in Dara Mataji when a motor bike bearing No. RJ26-SL-7076, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 2,

[2026:RJ-JP:5937]

[CMA-111/2020]

(2 of 5)

struck the claimant causing an accident wherein the claimant suffered a fracture on his left leg. Counsel submits that the claimant remained hospitalized till 30.04.2017 and after discharge from the hospital, the FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. 01.05.2017. Counsel submits that the claimant submitted a claim petition against the respondents seeking suitable amount of enhancement, however, the same was rejected by the Tribunal on two technical points - (i) Delay in lodging the FIR and; (ii) in the medical documents the word “Road Traffic Accident” (RTA) was not mentioned. Counsel submits that on these technical counts, the claim petition seeking compensation cannot be rejected in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors . reported in AIR 2011 SCC 1226 .

¶21

Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentInsurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that the police had taken the claimant to the hospital on the day of the accident. Counsel submits that neither the claimant nor the Police had lodged the FIR of the alleged incident on that day, hence under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim petition submitted by the claimant and interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶22

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

¶23

Perusal of the record indicates that as per the FIR lodged by the claimant on 01.05.2017, the accident occurred on 25.04.2017 and it has been alleged in the FIR that on account of rash and

[2026:RJ-JP:5937]

[CMA-111/2020]

(3 of 5)

negligent driving of the motor bike, the accident had occurred and the claimant resultantly suffered multiple injuries and also fractured his leg. This fact is not in dispute that FIR was not registered on the same day of accident and it was registered later on 01.05.2017 i.e. after a delay of six days from the date of the accident. This fact is not in dispute that the claimant remained under treatment at the hospital w.e.f. 25.04.2017 till 30.04.2017 and thereafter, after being discharged from the hospital the FIR was registered on the next day i.e. on 01.05.2017. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Badrinarayan (supra) has taken a similar view in para Nos.17, 18, 19 and 20, which reads as under:

¶28

“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 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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:5937]

[CMA-111/2020]

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.

¶35

In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not appreciating 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 petition.”

¶36

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has recorded an erroneous finding for rejecting the claim petition on the grounds that the medical papers of the claimant did not mention the word RTA. If the word RTA is not mentioned in the medical papers or discharge tickets of the claimant, that would not be fatal for such proceedings. Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove and looking to the proposition of law as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Badrinarayan (supra), the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and setaside.

(5 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:5937]

[CMA-111/2020]

The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for its adjudication on merits and on the issues framed therein, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.

¶41

The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.03.2026 and thereafter on the date fixed by the Tribunal.

¶42

Office is directed to return the summoned record to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶43

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant civil misc. appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶44

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶45

Ashu/43

Khawaju Khan S/O Jumma Khan v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khawaju Khan S/O Jumma Khan v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santaro Devi W/O Shri Madan Lal Vs Gulfaam S/O Mohammad Farid

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Rashmi Gupta and Others

Smt. Gulli Devi W/O Late Sh. Kailash Gurjar Vs Suresh Gurjar S/O Sh. Badri Narayan Gurjar

Prakash Chand S/O Indraj Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash Vs Ghanshyam and Others

Smt. Ganga Devi W/O Late Shri Krishan Kant Sharma, Vs Gopal Singh S/O Shri Bholuram