Delayed FIR cannot defeat a motor accident claim when prompt police intimation and accident occurrence are established.

On 20 April 2015, respondent No. 1, Chhotu Kushwah, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when a loading auto bearing registration No. UP 93 AT 3915 allegedly came from the wrong side and collided with the motorcycle near Kurthara village. Chhotu sustained serious injuries, including injuries to his right knee and leg, and underwent treatment and surgery at District Hospital, Datia, and subsequently at S.M. Hospital and Research Centre, Gwalior.

He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹11,50,000. The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹3,51,314 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing, jointly and severally against the respondents. The National Insurance Company challenged the award under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally contending that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated because the FIR was registered on 30 July 2015, approximately three months and ten days after the accident.

Whether the Claims Tribunal committed an illegality in allowing the claimant’s compensation petition despite the delay in registration of the FIR and the allegation that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated?

Whether the delay between the accident and formal registration of the FIR was sufficient to reject the claim for compensation?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation and appeals against awards, respectively.

It reiterated that motor accident claims are adjudicated on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the Tribunal must adopt a holistic and non-technical approach while determining just compensation. Relying on Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (2020) 13 SCC 486, Ravi v. Badrinarayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693, and Surendra Kumar Bhilawe v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 224, the Court held that delay in lodging an FIR is not by itself fatal; the evidence must be scrutinised more carefully to determine whether the FIR was fabricated or engineered.

The Court also relied on Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, and N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457, for the principles that strict criminal-law standards do not apply to motor accident claims and that technical doubts should not defeat a genuine claim.

The Court found that the accident and the claimant’s injuries had been promptly brought to the notice of the police through the information and medical intimation recorded on 20 and 21 April 2015, respectively. The formal FIR was registered only on 30 July 2015 after police inquiry into the Marg case; therefore, the delay was explained and could not be treated as an unexplained delay attributable to the claimant.

The claimant was not required to lodge a separate formal FIR while the police inquiry was already pending. The vehicle’s registration number was disclosed when the statements of the claimant and Veer Singh were recorded on 30 July 2015, and the subsequent investigation resulted in prosecution and conviction of the auto driver under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Applying the preponderance-of-probability standard and the principle that motor accident claims should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, the Court held that the record sufficiently corroborated the involvement of the offending vehicle and the occurrence of the accident.

The Claims Tribunal had committed no illegality in awarding ₹3,51,314 with interest at 7% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as meritless and the Tribunal’s award was affirmed.