Delay in lodging an FIR cannot defeat a motor accident claim absent evidence of fabrication.

On 27 October 2020, Pushpendra was travelling by motorcycle from Sitamau towards Mandsaur when, near Bajkhedi, his motorcycle was allegedly hit by motorcycle No. MP-14-MZ-0178, driven rashly and negligently by Suresh.

Pushpendra sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died during treatment.

The police later registered FIR Crime No. 186/2020 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC, seized the offending motorcycle, and filed a charge-sheet against Suresh.

The deceased’s survivors filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, which dismissed it by award dated 19 June 2023, holding that the accident had not been proved, principally because the eyewitness statement recorded on 27 October 2020 was forwarded to the police station only later.

The claimants challenged that finding in the present appeal.

The compensation assessed by the Tribunal was not disputed before the High Court.

1. Whether the claimants had proved the occurrence of the motor accident and the involvement of motorcycle No. MP-14-MZ-0178, despite the delay in forwarding the eyewitness statement and registering the FIR.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition solely on the basis of the delay and alleged irregularity concerning the eyewitness statement.

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to the compensation amount assessed by the Tribunal, with appropriate liability and disbursement directions.

The Court applied the principles governing motor accident compensation claims, including proof of the accident and negligent involvement of the offending vehicle on the basis of credible evidence.

It considered the police proceedings under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and the owner’s response to the notice issued under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which established that Suresh was using the offending motorcycle.

The Court relied on Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1226, holding that delay in lodging an FIR is not by itself fatal to a motor accident claim; courts must scrutinise the evidence more carefully and reject the claim only where the delay indicates fabrication or concoction.

The Court further applied the principle that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case cannot justify discarding otherwise consistent eyewitness testimony.

The High Court found that Pappu Nayak’s statement, recorded on the date of the accident, consistently described the collision, identified the offending motorcycle by its registration number, and remained substantially intact in cross-examination.

The evidence of police witnesses Naseeruddin and Mohan Sighar corroborated the recording and subsequent processing of that statement; their testimony did not establish that it had been fabricated or backdated.

The owner’s statement under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act connected Suresh with the offending motorcycle, while his arrest and the filing of the charge-sheet provided further corroboration.

Although the statement was forwarded after a delay and the FIR was registered on 7 November 2020, the Court held that the delay was attributable to the police process and did not undermine the substantive evidence of the accident.

Applying Ravi, the Tribunal’s conclusion was held to be based on conjectures and surmises rather than a proper assessment of the evidence.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s finding on Issue No. 1 and held that the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle had been proved.

The respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal, with simple interest at 6% per annum; if the amount was not deposited within 60 days, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay interest at 7% per annum.

The compensation was directed to be distributed as follows: 40% to the widow, 20% each to the daughter and son, and 10% each to the deceased’s mother and father.

Specified portions of the amounts payable to the widow, children and parents were directed to be placed in fixed deposits for five years, with yearly interest payable to them.