Delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to reject a motor accident claim petition.

The appellant Insurance Company challenged the legality of an award dated 11.04.2019 passed by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal, Raipur

The Tribunal had allowed a claim application filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, awarding ₹5,00,000/- plus interest to the claimants

The accident occurred on 31.06.2015, while the FIR was registered on 10.09.2015, reflecting a delay of 72 days

The appellant argued that this delay indicated the vehicle was falsely implanted to secure compensation

Whether a 72-day delay in lodging an FIR is a sufficient ground to doubt the claimant's case or dismiss a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act

Whether the appellant's plea of false implantation of the vehicle is sustainable in the absence of such a plea in the original written statement

Section 163(A) and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others (2011) 4 SCC 693, which held that delay in lodging an FIR is not a ground to deny justice, as Indian conditions often lead kith and kin to prioritize medical treatment over police reports

As long as there is no evidence of fabrication or concoction to implicate innocent persons, the claim cannot be dismissed solely due to a delayed FIR

The Court noted that the appellant's primary contention was the 72-day delay in filing the FIR

Applying the precedent in Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the Court reasoned that human nature and family responsibilities often cause delays as relatives focus on the victim's health rather than acting with "mechanical promptitude" in reporting to the police

The Court emphasized that while an FIR is vital, its delay is only fatal if the court finds indications of fabrication upon close scrutiny

In the present case, the Court found no such evidence

Crucially, the Court observed that the Insurance Company had failed to take the plea of "false implantation" of the vehicle in their written statement during the original proceedings

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the claim was fraudulent or that the delay was used to engineer a false case

It further held that since the plea of false implantation was not raised in the written statement, it lacked merit on appeal

The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned award of ₹5,00,000/- with interest was upheld

No costs were ordered