Delayed FIR does not defeat a motor accident claim where evidence establishes vehicle involvement.

On 11 January 2019 at approximately 8:00 p.m., Dharam Chand Burman alleged that he was returning from a temple with his friend when a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-20-NJ-3734, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2, struck him, causing serious injuries including a fracture to his right leg. He was admitted to Jamdar Hospital, Jabalpur, and underwent surgery. Crime No. 135/2019 was subsequently registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 24,00,000. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,98,914 with interest at 6% per annum and directed the owner, driver and insurer to satisfy the award

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the offending motorcycle had been subsequently implanted. It relied on the hospital admission record, which stated that the claimant had fallen from his own two-wheeler while attempting to save a dog, and argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly after the accident. The claimant maintained that the police investigation had established the involvement of the insured motorcycle

Whether the involvement of motorcycle No. MP-20-NJ-3734 in the accident was subsequently fabricated or implanted by the claimant?

Whether the delay in registration of the FIR and the contents of the hospital record were sufficient to reject the claimant’s petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

Whether the Claims Tribunal correctly awarded compensation and directed the insurer to indemnify the owner and driver?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166 provides the basis for a claim arising from a motor accident, while Section 173(1) provides the statutory right of appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

It relied on Ravi v. Badrinarayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693, for the rule that delay in lodging an FIR is not by itself fatal in motor accident claims; courts must examine the evidence carefully and reject the claim only where fabrication or concoction is indicated. Under United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509, strict rules of pleadings do not apply to motor accident claim proceedings. Under Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (2020) 13 SCC 486, the Tribunal is not bound by strict pleadings or proof beyond reasonable doubt; the applicable standard is the preponderance of probabilities.

The Court held that the evidence, viewed as a whole, supported the claimant’s version. Although the hospital admission sheet recorded that the claimant had fallen from a two-wheeler, the hospital’s subsequent intimation to the police described the incident as a “Motor Accident.” The police recorded the claimant’s statement during his hospitalisation, in which he identified respondent No. 2 and the insured motorcycle as being involved in the accident.

The claimant consistently stated in evidence that he had been struck by the motorcycle, and the eyewitness, Brijesh Burman, supported his account. Significantly, neither the claimant nor the eyewitness was confronted in cross-examination with the specific allegation that the offending vehicle had been implanted. Further, respondent No. 2, while denying the accident in examination-in-chief, admitted in cross-examination that the claimant had been hit by his motorcycle. Applying the principles that FIR delay is not conclusive and that motor accident claims are decided on a preponderance of probabilities, the Court found no sufficient basis to disbelieve the claimant or to interfere with the Tribunal’s factual findings.

The award of Rs. 3,98,914 with interest at 6% per annum, and the direction requiring the owner, driver and insurer to satisfy the compensation, were upheld. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.