Delay in lodging FIR is not a ground to deny motor accident compensation if the claim is otherwise bona fide.

The Appellant insurance company challenged the award dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, which allowed the claim of Respondents No. 1 to 3

The Appellant contended that the vehicle was falsely implicated and was not involved in the accident

The insurance company’s investigator noted a four-month delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR)

the Appellant had failed to take a specific plea of false implication in its written statement

1. Whether the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can be rejected solely on the ground of a four-month delay in lodging the FIR?

2. Whether the insurance company successfully established the plea of false implication of the vehicle in the absence of specific pleadings and evidence?

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals

Ravi v. Badrinarayan Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, which held that delay in lodging an FIR is not a ground to doubt a claimant’s case or deny justice, as victims often prioritize medical treatment and regaining mental tranquility over legal formalities

The principle applied is that such delays must be examined with scrutiny but should not be treated as fatal if cogent reasons exist and there is no evidence of fabrication

The Court observed that the insurance company did not raise a specific plea of false implication in its written statement

while the company examined an investigator, his testimony focused solely on the four-month delay in the FIR rather than providing evidence of non-involvement or fabrication

Following the Ravi v. Badrinarayan mandate, the Court reasoned that in Indian conditions, a common man cannot be expected to rush to the police immediately after an accident while dealing with family responsibilities and grief

Since the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the FIR was "concocted or engineered" to implicate innocent persons, the delay alone was insufficient to vitiate the Tribunal's findings

The Court found no merit in the appeal as the insurance company failed to plead or prove false implication. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned award of the Tribunal was upheld