Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal to motor accident claims if supported by cogent reasons.

On January 21, 2021, the deceased, Dinesh Yadav, was struck from behind by an Omni car (MP07 BA 1488) driven negligently by Respondent No. 4.

The deceased succumbed to injuries on January 29, 2021.

Although a medical report was filed on January 30, 2021, the formal FIR was lodged on March 26, 2021.

The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, which the Insurance Company challenged on grounds of a two-month delay in filing the FIR and alleged collusion between the claimants and the driver/owner due to shared caste/kinship.

1. Whether a delay of two months in lodging an FIR is fatal to a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Whether the Insurance Company established collusion between the claimants and the offending vehicle's owner/driver based on caste similarity.

3. Whether an adverse inference can be drawn against a driver who fails to testify despite filing a written statement.

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

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *Ravi v. Badrinarayan*, which held that delay in lodging an FIR is not grounds to dismiss a claim if the delay is explained by human nature or the need to prioritize medical treatment.

The court also applied the principles from *Basant Kumar v. Chatrpal Singh* (burden of proof on the driver) and *M.P. State Road Corporation v. Vaijanti* regarding the drawing of adverse inferences when a driver fails to enter the witness box.

The Court rejected the plea of collusion, noting that the Insurance Company failed to provide any documentary evidence of a close relationship beyond a shared surname/caste.

Regarding the FIR delay, the Court observed that the family was understandably occupied with the victim's hospitalization and subsequent death; furthermore, police records (Marg intimation) existed as early as January 30, 2021.

Following *Ravi v. Badrinarayan*, the Court held that since the investigation resulted in a charge sheet and there was no evidence of fabrication, the delay was not fatal.

Crucially, the Court drew an adverse inference against Respondent No. 4 because, while he denied negligence in his pleadings, he refused to testify and subject himself to cross-examination to rebut the claimants' evidence.

The High Court affirmed the award dated September 13, 2023, and dismissed the appeal, finding no perversity or illegality in the Tribunal’s findings.