Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Malti Tiwari

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84939
1 MA-1240-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1240 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010097832026
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
MALTI TIWARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Naveen Pandey - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award
dated 08.11.2025 passed by the Claims Tribunal, whereby an award to the
extent of Rs.56,44,030/- has been passed in favour of the respondents-
claimants.
2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has put forth three-fold
submissions before this Court to challenge the award. First submission was
made that there is delay in lodging of FIR inasmuch as the date of accident is
26.12.2023, but the FIR was lodged on 14.02.2024, which amounts to a delay
of almost 48 days in lodging of the FIR, which is stated to be fatal delay.
3. It is further argued that the deceased was not wearing a helmet and
the deceased had head injury arising out of accident and therefore, in some
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 10/26/2026
6:29:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84939
2 MA-1240-2026
manner, the violation of Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had some

nexus with the accident or the impact of the accident on the victim and
therefore, it amounts to contributory negligence of the victim. Further
ground is raised that the deceased was treated at a private hospital,
i.e. Minerva the Medi City, Rewa (for short, referred to as "Minerva
Hospital") and he left the said hospital against medical advice and there is a
note of LAMA (Left Against Medical Advice) made on the discharge paper
of the said hospital dated 04.01.2024 and therefore, it was the own
negligence of family of the deceased is not taking proper care of the deceased
that led to the death of the deceased and therefore, the impugned award be
set-aside or reduced. Alternative prayer is made to reduce the quantum as
there was contributory negligence of the deceased in not wearing the helmet.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently
supported the impugned award by contending that there is no error in the
said award and none of the grounds raised by the appellant-insurance
company are made out.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length
and perused the record.
6. The grounds raised by the appellant-insurance company are dealt
with one by one. Firstly, the ground of late FIR is dealt with. The accident
admittedly took place on 26.12.2023, whereas the FIR has been lodged on
14.02.2024.
7. However, upon perusal of the documents on record of the Tribunal,
it is seen that the merg intimation was given to Hospital Chowki of SGMH,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 10/26/2026
6:29:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84939
3 MA-1240-2026
Rewa on 04.01.2024 itself. The deceased had sustained injuries in the

accident on 26.12.2023 and he was firstly admitted to Minerva Hospital,
Rewa and then was taken to SGMH, Rewa on 04.01.2024, where he expired
on the same date. The merg intimation was given to the hospital Chowki on
04.01.2024 itself. The formal FIR was lodged by the Police lateron, but
intimation was very much given to police on 04.1.2024 itself. It cannot be
doubted that from 26.12.2023 till 04.012024, his attenders would have been
busy in taking care of the deceased as he was in critical condition. Therefore,
the delay in lodging the FIR seems to be properly explained.
8. Even looking to the medical papers of Minerva the Medi City,
Rewa, it is seen that the medical history as recorded in the discharge paper
Exhibit P-17 is that the patient was admitted in unconscious state on
27.12.2023 after meeting road traffic accident due to fall from bike at around
6:30 PM. He was operated upon and underwent brain surgery and thereafter
referred to higher center as noted in this discharge ticket Exhibit P-17.
9. Therefore, it is clear that even in the discharge ticket of Minerva the
Medi City, Rewa, the deceased having met with an accident is duly
mentioned. The admission ticket Exhibit P-16 mentions the deceased to have
been admitted to Minerva Hospital, Rewa on 27.12.2023 at 01.28 hours in
early morning of that date. The initial assessment on admission, which is part
of Exhibit P-17, mentions history of road traffic accident due to fall from
bike. Therefore, it is clear that the case from the very beginning was suffering
accident caused by fall from bike and therefore, mere late lodging of formal
FIR on 14.02.2024 does not fatally affect the case of the claimant. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 10/26/2026
6:29:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84939
4 MA-1240-2026
deceased was under treatment up to 04.01.2024 when he expired and merg

intimation was given to Hospital Chowki on 04.01.2024, which culminated
in formal FIR on 14.02.2024, which cannot be said to be belated.
10. Therefore, mere non-registration of FIR with promptitude and
registration of merg on 04.1.2024 cannot be said to be fatal to the case of
claimants. In the matter of non-registration of FIR, in Ravi v. Badrinarayan,
(2011) 4 SCC 693, it has been 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 of FIR. Unless kith and kin of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 10/26/2026
6:29:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84939
5 MA-1240-2026
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.
11. So far as the deceased having been discharged against medical
advice "LAMA" is concerned, the said note is duly mentioned in discharge
ticket Exhibit P-17. However, the same discharge ticket also mentions that
the condition of the patient remains critical and he is advised further
hospitalization and treatment at higher center. The discharge ticket is dated
04.01.2024 and the documents on record indicate that on the same date, the
deceased was admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (SGMH),
Rewa, which is a tertiary-level hospital run by the State Government of
Madhya Pradesh. The admission ticket is on record as part of Exhibit P-1, as
per which he was admitted on 04.01.2024 at SGMH, but expired on the same
date at 3:30 PM.
12. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the appellant that the
attenders of the deceased got him discharged from Minerva the Medi City,
Rewa and were negligent towards care of the deceased, is not made out. The
deceased was immediately taken on the same date to the higher center, but
unfortunately he expired on the same date.
13. The third ground taken is the deceased not wearing a helmet. No
doubt it has been provided in Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that
wearing of headgear is compulsory. The counsel for the appellant had relied
on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sadath Ali Khan
vs. Noor Ahmed Sayeed 2024 Supreme (Kar) 324 so also judgment of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 10/26/2026
6:29:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84939
6 MA-1240-2026
Madras High Court in the case of The Branch Manager, Reliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem vs. Velu & Another 2023 Supreme (Mad) 2109.
14. However, in the aforesaid judgments still the claim has been
allowed. In the case of judgment of Karnataka High Court, no deduction was
made by the High Court of Karnataka on the principle of just compensation.
However, the High Court of Madras did make deduction to the tune of 10%
for not wearing a helmet.
15. The High Court of Kerala has taken a contrary view in Kadeeja
Musaliyar and Ors. v. Riyas Manakadavan and Ors., National insurance Co.
v. Kadeeja Musaliyar (MACA.No.1433 OF 2010 and connected cases).
16. However, even if the view taken by the Madras High Court is to be
accepted, then it cannot be denied that since the deceased had suffered head
injury, then the impact of the accident could have been prevented or reduced
if he was wearing a helmet. However, in the present case, no defence was
taken in the written statement by the Insurance Company that the deceased
was driving or riding pillion without a helmet.
17. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was riding piliion
and another person, named Shivam Chaturvedi, was driving the motorcycle.
This Court has gone through the evidence brought on record before the
Tribunal. No suggestion has been given to Malti Tiwari (AW-1) as to
whether the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Infact,
in absence of pleading to that effect, no case could be set up in the cross-
examination.
18. The eye witness Rohit Kumar Garg (AW-3) was also examined
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 10/26/2026
6:29:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84939
7 MA-1240-2026
and he was extensively cross-examined also. No suggestion was given to him

as to whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or not. Indeed, in absence
of pleading to that effect, no case could be set up in the cross-examination.
19. Therefore, in absence of pleading to that effect in the written
statement and cross-examination of the claimant witnesses as to the deceased
wearing helmet or not at the time of accident, no finding can be given at
appellate stage. It is clearly an attempt to improve the case and to raise a
ground that was not set up before the Tribunal.
20. No doubt if the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of
accident, then the impact of accident could have been prevented or reduced if
he had been wearing helmet. However, by avoiding stating so in the written
statement and the insurance company not having taken defence of deceased
not wearing helmet, the said ground cannot be taken in appeal. At appellate
stage, this Court would not interfere in the award of the Tribunal by holding
that the deceased was not wearing any helmet in absence of any pleading or
material to suggest so.
21. Consequently, no interference is warranted in the impugned award
passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 10/26/2026
6:29:44 PM