Delay in Lodging FIR Not Fatal to Motor Accident Claims if Supported by Cogent Reasons

On November 1, 2015, the appellant was a pillion rider on a motorcycle (GJ-12-CF-5635) when an allegedly negligent Tractor (GJ-12-CG-8339) collided with them near Kankhoi.

The appellant sustained multiple fractures and was hospitalized for 40 days.

An FIR was lodged on December 18, 2015—after a 40-day delay—omitting the Tractor's registration number, though the subsequent police chargesheet included it.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Gandhidham – Kachchh, rejected the claim petition on March 13, 2019, holding that the involvement of the Tractor was not proved.

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the omission of the vehicle number therein are fatal to the claimant's case regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle.

2. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition despite evidence of the chargesheet and the nature of the injuries sustained.

The Court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which held that delay in lodging an FIR cannot be the sole grounds to doubt a claimant’s case in motor accident claims, as human nature prioritizes medical treatment over legal formalities.

The Court also applied the principle that if a chargesheet exists and there is no evidence of fabrication or "planting" of a vehicle, the factum of the accident and involvement of vehicles should be prima facie accepted.

The High Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning perverse, noting that the 40-day delay in filing the FIR was justified by the appellant's severe injuries and prolonged hospitalisation.

Following Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the Court observed that "tranquility of mind" is required before legal action, and delay should not deny justice if the reasons are cogent.

Furthermore, while the FIR did not name the vehicle, the Investigating Officer’s chargesheet (Exh. 39) specifically identified the Tractor (GJ-12-CG-8339), and the driver did not dispute his involvement.

The Court concluded that the evidence pointed to composite negligence between the motorcycle rider and the tractor driver, making the Tribunal's dismissal for "non-involvement" legally unsustainable.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated March 13, 2019, and remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh on merits, providing all parties an opportunity to lead evidence, with a direction for expeditious disposal.