Delay in Lodging FIR Not Fatal to Motor Accident Claims if Factum of Accident is Proved

In brief

The question

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition solely on the ground of a 20-day delay in lodging the FIR

The court held

The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision to reject the claim at the threshold was a "gross illegality"

It also directed

The Court answered that delay in FIR is not fatal if cogent reasons exist

Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the judgment dated 12.02.2009 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits, directing a conclusion preferably within six months

No order as to costs was made

01Facts

On 26.12.1991, at 4:00 p.m., the Appellant was hit by a "Chhakdo" rickshaw (Registration No. G.R.P. 4041) driven at excessive speed, resulting in grievous injuries

pp. 1-2

The claimant was hospitalized immediately

p. 6

Due to police inaction, the Appellant filed a private complaint (M. Case No. 8 of 1992) before a Magistrate on 15.01.1992, who then directed the police to register an FIR

p. 7

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot, rejected the claim petition in its judgment dated 12.02.2009, primarily on the ground that the 20-day delay in lodging the FIR made the claimant’s version doubtful

pp. 1, 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition solely on the ground of a 20-day delay in lodging the FIR

p. 3

ii.2. Whether the claimant had established the factum of the accident and negligence based on the preponderance of probabilities

pp. 7-8

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle that in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claimants must establish their case on the "touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"

pp. 7-8

It heavily relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Ravi v. Badrinarayan (2011), which established that delay in lodging an FIR is not a sufficient ground to deny justice to a victim if the delay is satisfactorily explained, as human nature prioritizes medical treatment over legal formalities

pp. 4, 9-10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the Tribunal committed a "serious illegality" by ignoring substantive oral and documentary evidence

p. 7

The High Court noted that medical records and doctor testimony (P.W.3) proved the claimant was hospitalized on the day of the accident

p. 6

Furthermore, the delay of 20 days was adequately explained by the fact that the claimant had to seek a Magisterial order to compel the police to register the FIR

p. 7

Applying the Ravi v. Badrinarayan doctrine, the Court reasoned that the authenticity of the claim was supported by independent witnesses (P.W.4) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.5), and therefore, the delay did not suggest fabrication or collusion

pp. 8-10