Delay in lodging FIR is not ground to deny motor accident compensation if evidence is trustworthy.

On December 31, 2016, a victim returning home on foot was struck from behind by a motorcycle (Reg. No. WB-36E/2518) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The victim succumbed to head injuries the following day.

The parents (claimants) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Trial Court awarded Rs. 11,41,200/- with interest, granting the Insurance Company "pay and recover" liberty against the owner due to an alleged fake driving license.

The Insurance Company appealed on grounds of a 25-day FIR delay, alleged vehicle implantation, and the faking of the driver’s license.

The claimants filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding compensation claims.

It relied on Ravi v. Badrinarayan, which held that FIR delay in Indian conditions is not grounds to deny justice if the evidence is otherwise credible.

The Court applied Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, noting that licenses can be issued by various regional authorities.

It followed its own precedents in Lirasa Bibi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Reliance General Insurance v. Niyati Kumar, establishing that the insurer must prove a "major" breach of policy and provide the owner an opportunity of being heard before recovery is ordered.

The Court dismissed the FIR delay argument, noting that grieving parents cannot be expected to act with mechanical promptitude immediately after a child's death.

It found the eyewitness testimony of P.W. 2 reliable as it was corroborated by the police charge sheet.

The Court observed that the Insurance Company failed to produce the actual seized license or summon the owner/driver to prove the document was fake; merely showing it wasn't issued by one specific RTO (Paschim Medinipur) did not prove it was fake, as it could have been issued elsewhere.

Regarding quantum, the Court accepted the victim’s occupation as a security guard based on the employer's certificate despite minor documentation gaps.

The "pay and recover" liberty was modified: the insurer may only recover if, upon conducting its own inquiry and giving the owner a hearing, it proves the license was fake and the owner had knowledge of such fact.

The appeal and cross-objection were disposed of accordingly.