Unexplained FIR delay and medical records omitting accident history justify dismissal of motor accident claims.

On August 18, 2015, the appellant allegedly sustained fractures to his left foot when his motorcycle was struck by a vehicle (Registration No. MP-06-MG-9664) driven rashly by respondent No. 2

An FIR was lodged by the appellant’s father on August 21, 2015—three days after the incident—leading to the filing of a charge-sheet against respondent No. 2

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Morena, rejected the claim petition in Case No. 388/2015, ruling that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident

The appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the charge-sheet and the vehicle owner's admission during the investigation sufficiently proved the involvement of the offending vehicle

1. Whether a delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to a motor accident claim if the claimant fails to provide a cogent explanation for the delay

2. Whether the filing of a charge-sheet is conclusive proof of an accident, or if the presumption it creates can be rebutted by the absence of medical and documentary evidence

The court applied the principles established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (2011) SC 1226, which holds that while delay in lodging an FIR is not a sole ground for dismissal, it necessitates "closer scrutiny" by the court to ensure the claim is not fabricated or engineered

The court maintained that for a delay to be condoned, the claimant must demonstrate "satisfactory and cogent reasons"

The court applied the evidentiary rule that while a charge-sheet raises a presumption of the factum of an accident, such a presumption is rebuttable

The court noted that the FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged three days after the alleged accident without any "cogent or sufficient explanation" for the delay

In its scrutiny of the evidence, the court found that the medical treatment paper (Ex. P-11) issued by Dr. Rajeev Kumar Bandil significantly omitted any mention that the injuries were sustained in a road traffic accident

The court reasoned that the lack of corroborating medical evidence, combined with the unexplained delay in reporting the incident, created "serious doubt" regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle

The court concluded that the presumption of the accident typically raised by the filing of a charge-sheet was effectively rebutted by these evidentiary gaps, suggesting a possibility of false implication for the purpose of claiming compensation

The court held that the appellant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle by cogent and reliable evidence

It found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's findings, as the claimant had not met the burden of proof required to establish the negligence of the driver or the factum of the accident