Omission of accident history in medical records justifies dismissal of motor accident compensation claims.

The appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 20.07.2012, a Swaraj tractor (No. MP06/AA 5507) struck her due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in a wheel running over her left hand.

She was hospitalized at Dr. Sanjib Bandil’s clinic from the date of the accident until 28.07.2012, on which date the FIR was finally lodged.

Following a police investigation and the filing of a charge-sheet against the driver, the appellant sought compensation.

The 4th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Morena, dismissed the claim in Case No. 83/2013 on 31.03.2017.

The appellant appealed this dismissal, contending that the charge-sheet proved the vehicle's involvement and that her hospitalization sufficiently explained the delay in lodging the FIR.

1. Whether a delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to a motor accident claim when a plausible explanation for the delay is provided.

2. Whether the absence of a "road traffic accident" mention in medical records and the failure to inform the treating physician of the cause of injury justifies an adverse inference against the claimant.

The court primarily applied the principles established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which holds that delay in lodging an FIR should not be the sole ground for dismissing a claim if the claimant demonstrates satisfactory and cogent reasons, though such cases require closer judicial scrutiny to prevent fabrication.

The court also applied the evidentiary principle that while a police charge-sheet may create a presumption of involvement, such a presumption is rebuttable and must be weighed against the consistency of medical evidence and witness testimonies.

The court scrutinized the eight-day delay between the accident (20.07.2012) and the FIR (28.07.2012).

While the appellant cited hospitalization as the reason for the delay, the court found significant evidentiary gaps: the hospital failed to notify the police during the treatment period, and the medical statement (Ex.P-5) contained no record of a motor vehicle accident.

Critically, the treating physician, Dr. Sanjeeb Bandil (PW-3), testified that neither the appellant nor her family informed him that the injuries were sustained in a road traffic accident.

The court reasoned that the failure to disclose the cause of injury to the doctor at the first instance, despite the family's presence and knowledge, warranted an adverse inference.

It held that the collective weight of the delayed FIR, the lack of medical corroboration of the accident's cause, and the non-disclosure to the physician created a reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence of the accident, suggesting potential false implication of the vehicle for compensation.

The court held that the Tribunal’s rejection of the claim petition was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and was in consonance with settled law.

The court found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned Award to warrant interference.