JAGDISHBHAI JINABHAI KANSAGARA vs HEMATLAL GANGARAM PATEL (CHANDRALA)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 349 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI JINABHAI KANSAGARA
Versus
HEMATLAL GANGARAM PATEL (CHANDRALA) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DELETED for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PARTH S TOLIA(5617) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR NIKHIL S VYAS(5663) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 01/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is preferred against the impugned
judgment and award dated 12.02.2009 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No.
229 of 1992, whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the
claim petition.
2. The succinct facts, which lead to the filing of the
captioned appeal are summarized as under :-
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
i. On 26.12.1991, at about 4:00 p.m., Dr.
Jagdishbhai Jinabhai Kansagara and his friend
Ghanshyambhai Ranchhodbhai were walking on
the road. When they reached the place of
accident, a Chhakdo bearing Registration No.
G.R.P. 4041, driven by its driver at an excessive
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came
from the opposite direction and violently dashed
with Dr. Jagdishbhai Jinabhai Kansagara. As a
result of the said vehicular accident, Dr.
Jagdishbhai Jinabhai Kansagara sustained
grievous injuries.
ii. The notices/summons of the Claim Petition were
duly served upon the opponents. The opponent
nos.1& 2 appeared before the learned Tribunal
and filed Written-Statements at Exh.24 & 14,
thereby, denying the averments made in the
claim petition
iii. Having considered the pleadings of the parties,
the learned Tribunal framed the following issues
at Exh.26 for determination.
i. Whether it is proved that the claimant
sustained injuries on account of rahness
or negligence in driving on the part of
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
the driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident?
ii. What amount, if any, the claimant is
entitled to by way of compensation and
from which of the opponents?
iii.What order?
iv. Having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, and having
considered the submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal
has rejected the claim petition.
v. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned judgment and award, t the claimant -
appellant herein preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. At the outset, Mr.Parth Tolia, learned advocate for the
the original claimant - appellant herein preferred the present
appeal vehemently submitted that the claim petition filed by
the claimant – appellant herein came to be rejected only on
sole ground that the learned Tribunal has not relied upon the
version of the claimant – appellant herein and further on the
ground of delay, as the FIR came to be lodged after the delay
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
of 20 days. It is submitted that in order to prove its case, the
the claimant - appellant herein had led documentary as well
as oral evidence, such as medical papers of the treatment, FIR
of the accident, panchnama of place of accident.
5. It is submitted that he has also examined the claimant
himself stepped into witness box and deposed in support of his
case. Not only this, he has also examined the other witnesses
i.e. Dr. Durgeshkumar Pradhyumanrai Dholakiya as P.W.2 at
Exh.55, Dr. Pankajbhai Mohanlal Patel as P.W.3 at Exh.63,
Ghanshyambhai Ranchhodbhai Patel as P.W.4 at Exh.72,
Vishnudas Sujndardas Desani as P.W.5 at Exh.123 and
Anilbhai Narendrabhai Shashtri as P.W.2 at Exh.149. All the
witnesses have supported the version of the claimant –
appellant herein.
6. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously
disbelieved both the oral and documentary evidence adduced
by the claimant – appellant herein. The Tribunal also took the
view that since the FIR came to be lodged after a delay of 20
days, the version of the claimant had become doubtful and
suspicious. It is submitted that mere delay in lodging the FIR
cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to reject a claim
petition at the threshold. In support of his contentions, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of Ravi versus Badrinarayan reported in
2011 (0) GLHEL-SC-49430. Having placed reliance upon the
aforesaid judgment and award, he submitted that the
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
impugned judgment and award is required to be set aside and
the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to
decide the case on its own merits.
7. Mr. Nikhil Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf
of respondent No.1 submitted that the offending Chhakdo
Rickshaw was duly insured with respondent No.2 – Insurance
Company at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that in
the event any liability is fastened upon respondent No.1, the
same shall be indemnified by respondent No.2 – Insurance
Company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy.
8. Per contra, Mr.H.G.Majmudar, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
and award. The learned Tribunal, after considering the
material on record, has rightly rejected the claim of the
claimant. It is submitted that there is a lacuna in the case of
claimant. The version of the claimant is not reliable.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal as rightly rejected the claim
petition. It is submitted that the FIR came to be lodged after
an unexplained delay of 20 days and, therefore, prima facie, it
appears that there was collusion between the claimant and
the owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle -
Chhakdo Rickshaw. It is submitted that the witnesses
examined by the claimant were planted and that false and
fabricated records were subsequently created with a view to
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
supporting the claim. In such circumstances, according to the
learned advocate, the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated
the evidence on record and has, therefore, rightly rejected the
claim petition.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for the parties and having gone through the record,
it is noted that the the claimant – appellant herein has
challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the
claim petition came to be rejected at the threshold. While
rejecting the claim petition, mainly the learned Tribunal
disbelieved the version of the claimant – appellant herein and
also considered the delay in lodging the FIR. It emerges from
the record that the accident in question took place on
26.12.1991. The medical documents placed on record
transpires that on the very same day, the claimant – appellant
herein was admitted in the hospital of Dr.Pankaj Patel. The
medical records on record reveal that the claimant–appellant
had sustained injuries in the vehicular accident which
occurred at Azad Chowk, Rajkot. The concerned doctor was
also examined by the claimant as P.W.3. In his deposition, he
stated that the claimant was admitted to his hospital on
26.02.1991 and had undergone treatment as an indoor
patient. The witness also proved the relevant medical
documents including the X-ray reports and other treatment
papers produced on record. The claimant–appellant himself
stepped into the witness box and deposed in consonance with
the averments made in the claim petition. He reiterated the
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
manner in which the accident had occurred and supported the
case put forward by him through his oral testimony. Not only
this, the claimant – appellant herein has also examined one
independent witness viz. Ghanshyambhai Ranchhodbhai Patel
as P.W.4. He also proved that the claimant / appellant herein
has sustained the injury in vehicular accident, as he was hit by
Chhakdo Rickshaw bearing Registration No.G.R.P. 4041. It is
also evident from the record that the police has not recorded
the FIR of the accident. Therefore, the claimant – appellant
herein has to approach the Court by way of filing the
complaint being M.Case No.8 of 1992 on 15.01.1992. In the
said case, the learned Magistrate directed the police to record
the FIR. On the basis of the directions issued by the Court, the
police recorded the FIR, and thereafter, conducted the
investigation. The Investigating Officer was also examined as
P.W.5. He also proved the occurrence of accident and the
investigation conducted by him. The owner and driver of the
chhakdo rickshaw had also appeared before the learned
Tribunal and filed their written-statements, and thereafter
admitting the factum of occurrence of accident. Thus, from
the pleadings, documentary evidence produced before the
learned Tribunal and oral evidence led by the claimant, it is
evident that the Dr.Jagdish Jinabhia Kansagara met with
vehicular accident on 26.12.1991. the learned Tribunal had
not relied upon all these evidence on record and committed
serious illegality in disbelieving the documents available on
record. It is a settled proposition of law that, in proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is required to
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
establish his case on the touchstone of the preponderance of
probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. From the
material available on record, it sufficiently emerges that the
claimant–appellant had sustained injuries in a vehicular
accident which occurred on 26.12.1991. The evidence
adduced before the learned Tribunal, both oral and
documentary, adequately establishes the involvement of the
accident and the injuries suffered by the claimant therein.
10. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, a
perusal of the record reveals that immediately after the
accident, the claimant–appellant was admitted to the hospital
of Dr. Pankaj Patel for treatment. It further emerges from the
record that, despite the occurrence of the accident, the police
did not register the FIR. Consequently, the claimant–appellant
was constrained to file a private complaint being M. Case No.
8 of 1992 before the competent Magistrate. Pursuant to the
directions issued by the learned Magistrate in the said
proceedings, the police registered the FIR. Thus, the delay in
lodging the FIR stands satisfactorily explained and cannot be
construed as a circumstance adverse to the case of the
claimant–appellant.
11. Be that as it may, mere delay in lodging the FIR would
not be suffice to reject the name of the claimant at threshold.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi (supra) has
observed thus:-
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
“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.
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.
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
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.
22. 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.
23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the MACT as well as High Court
committeMr. Nikhil Vyas, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1, submitted that the offending
Chhakdo Rickshaw was duly insured with respondent
No.2 – Insurance Company at the relevant point of time. It
was further submitted that in the event any liability is
fastened upon respondent No.1, the same shall be
indemnified by respondent No.2 – Insurance Company in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy.d error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the
FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim
petition. ”
12. Thus, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality in
rejecting the claim petition at the threshold. Consequently,
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026
C/FA/349/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2026
the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment and
award are hereby quashed and set aside, and the matter is
remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication on its
own merits and in accordance with law, without being
influenced by any of the observations made in the present
order. The learned Tribunal shall make an endeavour to
decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this
order. Both the parties are directed to cooperate with the
learned Tribunal and shall not seek unnecessary
adjournments. The Record and Proceedings, if received, be
transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal. The
statutory amount lying deposited with the Registry of this
Court shall also be remitted forthwith to the concerned
Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to
costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 08 13:05:40 IST 2026