Unexplained delay in lodging FIR creates doubt regarding vehicle involvement, justifying dismissal of claim petition.

The appellant (claimant) alleged that on 14.10.2013, he was riding an Activa scooter when a Bolero pickup (MP-07-GA-4024) driven negligently by respondent No. 1 hit him, causing a leg fracture and other injuries.

The FIR was lodged on 29.10.2013, 15 days after the incident.

After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against respondent No. 1.

The 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gwalior, dismissed the claim petition on 12.12.2017, holding that the accident was not proven.

The appellant challenged this dismissal, arguing that the charge sheet and medical records sufficiently proved the accident.

1. Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the evidence on record justify the rejection of the claim petition for lack of proof regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle.

The court applied the principles governing the effect of delay in lodging an FIR in Motor Accident Claims cases as established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which holds that while delay is not a sole ground to dismiss a claim, it requires closer scrutiny of evidence and a satisfactory explanation from the claimant.

It also considered the evidentiary value of a police charge sheet, noting that while it creates a rebuttable presumption of the accident's occurrence, such a presumption can be overcome by contradictory facts or lack of credibility.

The court scrutinized the timeline of events and found that while the accident occurred on 14.10.2013, the FIR was only registered on 29.10.2013.

Medical records (Discharge Ticket, Ex.P-8) showed the appellant was hospitalized from 15.10.2013 to 22.10.2013.

The court noted that the appellant failed to provide any "satisfactory and cogent explanation" for the subsequent 7-day delay between his discharge (22.10.2013) and the lodging of the FIR (29.10.2013).

Applying the Ravi v. Badrinarayan standard, the court held that this unexplained delay created serious doubt regarding the involvement of the specified Bolero pickup and raised the possibility of "false implication" of the vehicle for compensation purposes.

Consequently, the court found that the Tribunal’s decision to ignore the charge sheet in favor of these suspicious circumstances was legally sound.

The court concluded there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned award.

The appeal was dismissed.