Delay in seizure of offending vehicle is no ground to reject motor accident compensation claims.

The appellant Insurance Company challenged the awards dated 11/10/2019 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund.

The Tribunal granted compensation of ₹7,10,400 and ₹9,77,200 respectively for the deaths of Rupendra Sahu and Ashwani Nishad, arising from a motor accident on 05/07/2017.

Although the accident occurred on 05/07/2017 and the FIR was registered promptly on the same day, the offending vehicle (C.G.-C-5457) was not seized until 05/10/2017—a delay of three months.

The appellant contended that this delay indicated the vehicle was falsely implicated.

Whether the three-month delay in the seizure of the offending vehicle is sufficient ground to reject a claim for compensation and set aside the Tribunal’s award.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which governs the application for compensation arising out of accidents.

Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding causing death by negligence, for which the driver was charge-sheeted following an investigation.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the delay in seizure invalidated the claim. It reasoned that the prompt filing of the FIR on the date of the accident (05/07/2017) established the immediacy of the report.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation conducted by the police resulted in a charge-sheet against the driver, Mohan Dhruv, under Section 304-A of the IPC.

This investigation was corroborated by the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar Bhoi (NA.W.-1), who appeared as a witness for the Insurance Company itself.

The Court held that a mere delay in the seizure of a vehicle by the police cannot override the established facts of the accident and the subsequent criminal investigation, thus it does not constitute a "good ground" to set aside a compensation award under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, dismissed both appeals, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.