Delayed FIR alone cannot defeat a motor accident claim when evidence establishes negligence.

Mahesh died in a road accident on 5 December 2015 at approximately 21:15 hours after falling from his motorcycle following a collision involving motorcycle No. MP-40-MM-1742, allegedly driven by Surendra in a rash and negligent manner.

The FIR was registered after an enquiry into the merg, on either 22 January 2016 or 27 January 2016 as recorded inconsistently in the judgment, resulting in an alleged delay of approximately 47 days.

The Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against Surendra under Section 304-A of the IPC.

The Claims Tribunal, in Claim Case No. 346/2016, awarded compensation by order dated 6 April 2021.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the delay in lodging the FIR, the documents indicating that Mahesh merely fell from his motorcycle, the delayed seizure of the vehicle, and alleged collusion between the claimants and the vehicle’s owner and driver demonstrated false implication.

Whether the delayed registration of the FIR and delayed seizure of the alleged offending vehicle justified rejection of the claim or disbelieving the claimants’ case.

Whether the evidence established that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Surendra, rather than Mahesh having fallen from his motorcycle independently.

Whether the insurer established that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated in collusion with its owner and driver.

The appeal was considered under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which permits an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle that mere delay in lodging an FIR is not sufficient to reject a motor-accident claim where the accident and involvement of the vehicle are otherwise supported by the evidence.

Relying on Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 693, the Court held that Indian social conditions, family responsibilities, and the priority of obtaining medical treatment may explain delay, and that delay alone cannot defeat a claim.

The Court also relied on the evidentiary principle that the claimant cannot be disbelieved merely because the deceased died after falling from a motorcycle, unless evidence establishes that the fall was entirely unconnected with the alleged offending vehicle.

The insurer bears the burden of proving the allegation of false implication or collusion through cogent evidence.

The Court held that the FIR was registered after an enquiry into the merg and that the delay was attributable to the investigative process rather than any lapse by the claimants.

Applying Ravi, it found that the 47-day delay could not, by itself, undermine the claim.

Documents Ex. P-4, P-6, and P-10 showed that Mahesh fell from the motorcycle and died, but they did not establish that the fall occurred independently of any collision.

The Investigating Officer, after investigation, found prima facie involvement of Surendra and filed a charge-sheet under Section 304-A IPC.

This conclusion was corroborated by eyewitness Pirthilal (AW-2), who stated that Surendra drove motorcycle No. MP-40-MM-1742 rashly and negligently and dashed against Mahesh’s motorcycle; his testimony was not discredited in cross-examination.

The insurer produced no witness or other sufficient evidence to prove collusion or false implication.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s finding of rash and negligent driving was supported by the record.

It held that the delayed FIR and vehicle seizure did not warrant rejection of the claim, and that the evidence sufficiently established that Surendra’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident and Mahesh’s death.

Finding no merit or ground for interference with the Tribunal’s award, the Court dismissed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1438 of 2021.