### Unexplained Delay in Lodging FIR Following Hospital Discharge Justifies Rejection of Motor Accident Claim

The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition alleging that on October 13, 2016, he was hit by a motorcycle (MP-07-MZ-6982) driven rashly by respondent No. 1.

The claimant was hospitalized from October 13 to October 26, 2016.

The FIR was lodged on November 23, 2016, nearly a month after discharge.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dabra, rejected the claim petition on the grounds of unexplained delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies regarding the date of the accident in medical records.

The appellant challenged this dismissal, arguing that the charge sheet filed after police investigation prima facie established the accident.

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and discrepancies in medical records regarding the date of the accident are fatal to the claim for compensation.

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in its appreciation of evidence regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle.

The court applied the principles governing Motor Accident Claims, specifically the effect of delayed FIRs as established by the Supreme Court in *Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others* (AIR 2011 SC 1226).

The rule dictates that while delay in lodging an FIR is not an absolute ground to deny a claim, it necessitates closer judicial scrutiny to ensure the claim is not fabricated or concocted.

While a police charge sheet creates a rebuttable presumption of the vehicle's involvement, the claimant must still demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for any significant delay in reporting the incident.

The High Court observed that while the accident allegedly occurred on October 13, 2016, the hospital records (Ex. P-6) mentioned the date of accident as October 11, 2016, for which no corroborative medical evidence was provided.

The claimant was discharged on October 26, 2016, yet the FIR was only registered on November 23, 2016.

The court found that the claimant failed to provide any "satisfactory and cogent reason" for this nearly month-long gap post-discharge.

Applying the *Ravi v. Badrinarayan* standard, the court held that such unexplained delay, coupled with the lack of treatment papers for the intervening period, created "serious doubt" regarding the involvement of the vehicle and suggested potential false implication for the purpose of obtaining compensation.

The court affirmed that the findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence regarding the suspicious delay and factual discrepancies.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the impugned award rejecting the claim petition was upheld.