Mere Triple Riding and Delayed FIR Registration Do Not Constitute Grounds for Denying Motor Accident Compensation

On January 1, 2020, the deceased was struck by an offending vehicle (MP-21L-1508) driven rashly by Respondent No. 7, leading to his death during treatment.

A claim was filed, and the 22nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, awarded compensation via an order dated May 22, 2024.

The appellant insurance company challenged the award on three grounds: (i) the driver’s license (Ex. D/3) was fake as per the company's Administrative Officer; (ii) as the deceased was riding with two pillion riders, there was contributory negligence; and (iii) there was an unexplained 24-day delay in filing the FIR.

1. Whether the driving license (Ex. D/3) was proven to be fake, thereby constituting a breach of policy terms.

2. Whether the act of riding a motorcycle with two pillion riders per se establishes contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

3. Whether a 24-day delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the motor accident claim.

The burden of proving a breach of policy (such as a fake license) lies on the insurer, requiring the examination of the competent RTO authority.

Regarding FIR delays, the court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, which establishes that delay in lodging an FIR cannot be the sole ground to dismiss a claim if the case is otherwise genuine and the delay is explained by human circumstances following an accident.

Negligence must be proven as a fact and cannot be presumed solely based on the number of passengers on a vehicle.

The court found that the appellant failed to examine any official from the RTO Hazaribagh; thus, the testimony of the insurance company’s internal officer was insufficient to prove Ex. D/3 was fake.

On the issue of contributory negligence, the court held that the mere presence of three persons on a motorcycle does not automatically prove negligence or that such a state contributed to the crash.

Regarding the FIR delay, the court noted that a marg intimation was registered on the day of the incident, and the formal FIR followed an inquiry; following the Ravi v. Badrinarayan doctrine, it held that victims prioritize medical treatment and emotional composure over police formalities, and such delays do not invalidate authentic claims.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s award.