Unexplained delay in FIR and medical records contradicting vehicle type justify rejection of motor accident claim.

On March 24, 2014, the appellant/claimant was allegedly hit by a car (Reg. No. M.P.-07-MJ-5000) driven by Respondent No. 1, resulting in a fractured femur.

The appellant was hospitalized from March 24 to April 10, 2014.

An FIR was subsequently lodged on May 4, 2014—41 days after the incident.

The XIV Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gwalior, dismissed the claim petition (Claim Case No. 281/2014) on the grounds that the vehicle was not involved in the accident.

The appellant challenged this dismissal, asserting that the delay in the FIR was properly explained by his hospitalization.

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained so as to allow the claim for compensation.

2. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in finding that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated and not involved in the accident.

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against claim awards.

Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which holds that while delay in lodging an FIR is not inherently fatal to a motor accident claim, it requires the court to scrutinize the evidence with closer care to ensure the case is not fabricated or engineered to implicate innocent persons.

The principle dictates that the claimant must demonstrate "satisfactory and cogent reasons" for any delay.

The Court observed that while the appellant was hospitalized until April 10, 2014, there was no explanation for the continued delay in lodging the FIR between April 11 and May 3, 2014, despite the appellant knowing the vehicle's registration number.

Crucially, the medical records (Ex. P-1) indicated that the injuries were sustained in a motorcycle accident, directly contradicting the appellant’s claim (Ex. P-15) and the FIR that a car was the offending vehicle.

The Court reasoned that these contradictions, combined with the 41-day unexplained delay, suggested the possibility of false implication for the purpose of claiming compensation.

Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of evidence to be proper and devoid of perversity.

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's award, stating that no jurisdictional error or illegality was present.

The appeal was dismissed.