Unexplained Delay In Lodging FIR And Lack Of Corroborative Medical Evidence Fatal To Motor Accident Claim

The appellants (claimants) filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on 27.10.2015, Hari Singh (deceased) was struck by a motorcycle (MP67 MB 8672) driven rashly by Respondent No. 1, resulting in grievous injuries and permanent disability.

An FIR was lodged on 23.11.2015, nearly one month after the incident.

The Claimants alleged that Hari Singh later died during the pendency of the proceedings.

The First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri, rejected the claim petition on 28.03.2018, finding a lack of evidence regarding the accident and the involvement of the vehicle.

The appellants challenged this dismissal before the High Court.

1. Whether a delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to a motor accident claim petition if the delay is not satisfactorily explained.

2. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in finding that the claimants failed to prove the factum of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle.

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

It relied on the principle established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which held that while delay in lodging an FIR is not per se fatal to a claim, it requires the court to examine evidence with closer scrutiny; the claimant must demonstrate "satisfactory and cogent reasons" for such delay to maintain the authenticity of the claim.

The court observed that there was an unexplained delay of approximately one month in lodging the FIR (incident: 27.10.2015; FIR: 23.11.2015).

Applying the scrutiny required by the Ravi precedent, the court found that the deceased failed to produce any medical records or documentary evidence proving he received treatment on the date of the accident or was hospitalized during the period of delay.

The court noted that the testimony of the deceased and other witnesses was unreliable and lacked confidence.

Consequently, because the claimants could not provide a "satisfactory explanation" for the delay and failed to prove the accident through medical documentation, the court inferred a possibility of false implication of the vehicle for compensation purposes.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle were not proved.

The appeal was dismissed, and the award dated 28.03.2018 was affirmed.