Delay in lodging an FIR cannot alone defeat a motor accident compensation claim.

On 27.04.2021, the appellant, travelling as a pillion rider, alleged that a tractor driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 collided with the motorcycle near village Ganj Tal, causing injuries to his chest, ribs, nose, wrists, waist and other parts of the body.

The tractor was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3–Insurance Company.

The appellant claimed compensation of ₹8,40,000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including medical expenses, loss of income and compensation for permanent disability.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent, while the Insurance Company contested the claim, alleging, inter alia, a 22-day delay in lodging the FIR, absence of proof of primary treatment, non-use of a helmet, fabrication of the tractor’s involvement and negligence of the motorcycle driver.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident and injuries had not been proved.

In appeal, the High Court examined the appellant’s testimony, FIR, spot map, seizure memo, vehicle examination report, criminal-case papers, treatment records and medical bills.

1. Whether the appellant had proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the offending tractor and that he sustained injuries therein?

2. Whether the 22-day delay in lodging the FIR was sufficient to reject the motor accident claim?

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for permanent disability, grievous injury and loss of future earning capacity in the absence of a disability certificate or X-ray report?

4. What amount of compensation and interest was payable to the appellant?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which a claimant must establish the motor accident and resulting injury on the standard of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

It relied on Ravi v. Badrinarayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693, which holds that delay in lodging an FIR is not, by itself, a ground to reject a motor accident claim; courts must scrutinise the evidence more carefully and determine whether the FIR appears fabricated or engineered.

Compensation for permanent disability or loss of future earning capacity requires reliable medical proof of permanent disability or corresponding functional impairment, whereas proved medical expenses and reasonable compensation for pain and suffering may be awarded for established injuries.

The High Court found that the appellant’s testimony was corroborated by the FIR, spot map, seizure memo, vehicle examination report and other police papers, and that the police had investigated the occurrence and proceeded against respondent No.1.

The appellant’s admission that he did not know the tractor’s registration number or its driver weakened the Insurance Company’s allegation that the tractor had been falsely implicated in collusion.

Applying the principle in Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the Court held that the 22-day FIR delay, viewed in the context of the appellant’s medical condition and the COVID-19 circumstances, was not fatal, particularly in the absence of material suggesting fabrication.

However, the medical record did not establish permanent disability or grievous injury, as no disability certificate or X-ray report had been produced; therefore, the Court treated the injuries as simple injuries and denied compensation for permanent disability and loss of future earning capacity.

The proved medical bills amounted to ₹39,674, to which ₹5,000 was added for pain and suffering.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s award dated 07.03.2024, holding that the appellant had proved the accident and the injuries sustained therein, although not any permanent disability or grievous injury.

The appellant was awarded ₹44,674, comprising ₹39,674 towards proved medical expenses and ₹5,000 towards pain and suffering.

Respondent No.3–Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until payment, within 60 days of receiving the judgment.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.