### Delay in lodging FIR and absence of vehicle damage cannot be sole grounds for dismissing a claim.

On October 18, 2015, the appellant was traveling in an auto-rickshaw when a WagonR car (DL-8C-NA-6821) hit the vehicle from behind at high speed.

The appellant sustained serious head and body injuries and was hospitalized from October 18 to October 20, 2015.

An FIR was lodged on October 20, 2015.

The Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gwalior, rejected the claim petition on the grounds of a two-day delay in filing the FIR and a lack of visible damage to the offending vehicle in the mechanical inspection report conducted six days post-accident.

1. Whether a two-day delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act when the claimant was undergoing medical treatment.

2. Whether the absence of visible damage in a delayed mechanical inspection report is sufficient grounds to disprove the involvement of the offending vehicle.

3. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition without assessing compensation and liability.

The Court primarily relied on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which held that delay in lodging an FIR cannot be a ground to deny justice if the delay is explained by the necessity of victim treatment and a lack of fabrication.

The principles emphasize that courts must scrutinize evidence more closely in cases of delay rather than dismissing them mechanically, as human nature prioritizes medical care over police reports.

The High Court found that the two-day delay was satisfactorily explained by medical documents (Ex. P-5, P-6, and P-45), which proved the appellant was hospitalized during that period.

Regarding the vehicle damage, the Court reasoned that the mechanical inspection took place on October 24, 2015—six days after the accident—and therefore, the absence of visible damage at that late stage was not a cogent ground to discard oral and documentary evidence of the vehicle's involvement.

The Court determined that the Tribunal committed a reversible error by prioritizing technicalities over substantive evidence regarding the accident's occurrence.

The case was remanded to the Claims Tribunal for the limited purpose of assessing the quantum of compensation and fixing liability.

The Tribunal was directed to provide both parties an opportunity for a hearing and to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months from the receipt of the order.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on March 17, 2026.