Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal to motor accident claims if satisfactorily explained.

The Appellant (Insurance Company) challenged an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favor of Respondent No. 1 (the claimant).

The claimant alleged she sustained back injuries on February 27, 2014, after being hit by a motorcycle (MP 43 DM 6411) driven by Respondent No. 2.

The Insurance Company contested the claim, highlighting a 10-day delay in lodging the FIR (filed March 9, 2014) and pointing to a medical prescription dated the day of the accident which attributed the injury to a "fall" rather than a vehicular collision.

The driver denied the accident occurred.

The claimant explained the delay, stating the vehicle owner initially promised to cover medical expenses but later reneged.

The High Court condoned a 43-day delay in filing this appeal before hearing the merits.

1. Whether a 10-day delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in its appreciation of evidence regarding the factum of the accident.

The court applied Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals.

The court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 693, which held that delay in lodging an FIR cannot be the sole grounds to deny justice or doubt a claimant’s case, provided the explanation is cogent and there is no evidence of fabrication.

The court found the claimant’s explanation for the 10-day delay—that she relied on the owner's promise to pay for treatment—to be satisfactory and not "false or frivolous".

Applying the Ravi v. Badrinarayan principle, the court noted that in Indian conditions, victim treatment often takes precedence over police reports.

Regarding the factum of the accident, the court observed that while the driver (NAW-1) denied the collision, he admitted to seeking bail and "supurdagi" (custody) of the vehicle and failed to file any formal complaint alleging false implication to senior police officials.

The testimony of the injured claimant and Dr. O.P. Gupta (P.W.2), supported by the MLC and police investigation, sufficiently proved the accident occurred on the date alleged.

The court held that the delay in filing the FIR was adequately explained and not fatal to the proceedings.

The court further held that the Tribunal’s findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and investigation documents.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.