Delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to deny compensation in motor accident claims.

The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Ghanshyam Sen, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following a fatal accident on 11.12.2015.

The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kabirdham, rejected the claim application on 07.09.2019.

The MACT’s dismissal was predicated on two grounds: first, a significant delay in lodging the FIR (registered on 23.05.2016, though the judgment contains a clerical error stating 2015); and second, the finding that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.

The driver of the vehicle (Respondent No. 1) had been charge-sheeted under Section 304-A of the IPC following an investigation.

1. Whether a delay in lodging an FIR is a sufficient ground to reject a claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident despite the filing of a charge-sheet and eyewitness testimony.

The Court primarily applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards.

It relied heavily on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan (2011) 4 SCC 693, which mandates that delay in lodging an FIR cannot be the sole ground to deny justice to a victim, as kith and kin often prioritize medical treatment over legal formalities.

Additionally, the court considered the evidentiary value of a police charge-sheet under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the testimony of eyewitnesses in civil liability proceedings.

The Court observed that the Tribunal’s rejection based on the FIR delay was contrary to established law.

Citing Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the Court noted that "human nature and family responsibilities" often cause delays in reporting accidents as families focus on the victim’s care.

Regarding the involvement of the vehicle, the Court found the Tribunal’s finding perverse and contrary to the record.

It noted that the Investigating Officer (Ashwani Pandey) testified that the charge-sheet (Exhibit A/1) was filed against Respondent No. 1 after a thorough investigation.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the testimony of eyewitness Manoj Verma (A.W.-2), whose evidence supported the claimants and remained uncontroverted during cross-examination.

The Court reasoned that these factors, alongside the re-investigation report (Exhibit D/11), sufficiently established the vehicle's involvement.

The Court held that the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the FIR delay and the vehicle’s non-involvement.

The matter was remitted to the Claims Tribunal with directions to determine the questions of rash and negligent driving and the quantum of compensation.

The Tribunal is ordered to pass a reasoned speaking order within three months from the receipt of the judgment.