Unexplained inordinate delay in lodging FIR and lack of medical evidence justify dismissal of motor accident claims.

On March 21, 2017, the appellant/claimant was allegedly struck from behind by a motorcycle (Registration No. MP07 MY 6574) while walking near Tekanpur

The claimant alleged that he sustained injuries and was taken to a hospital in Gwalior by a witness

However, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged only on May 5, 2017, representing a delay of approximately one and a half months

Following the filing of a charge-sheet against the driver, the claimant sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

The First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra, dismissed the claim petition on November 29, 2018

The appellant subsequently filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the FIR and charge-sheet were sufficient to prove the accident

1. Whether a delay of one and a half months in lodging the FIR is fatal to the claim proceedings in the absence of a cogent explanation

2. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim despite the police having filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle

The Court primarily interpreted Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Court applied the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others (AIR 2011 SC 1226), which holds that while delay in lodging an FIR is not an absolute ground to doubt a claimant, it requires the Court to examine the evidence with closer scrutiny to ensure the case is not fabricated or concocted.

The rule emphasizes that a delay should only be condoned if the claimant demonstrates "satisfactory and cogent reasons" for such delay

The Court observed that while an FIR proves the factum of an accident, an inordinate delay necessitates a higher burden of proof on the claimant

In this instance, the Court noted that the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the 45-day delay in reporting the incident

Crucially, the Court highlighted the absence of reliable medical documentation to prove that the appellant was hospitalized during the intervening period

The Court reasoned that the failure of the claimant or his family to inform the police for a prolonged period severely weakened the credibility of the claim

Applying the "closer scrutiny" test from Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the Court found that the possibility of the "implantation of the vehicle" solely for seeking compensation could not be ruled out

Consequently, the Court determined that the Tribunal's decision to reject the claim due to the unreliability of the evidence was not erroneous

The Court affirmed that in the absence of cogent reasons for a delayed FIR and a lack of corroborating medical evidence, the claim cannot be sustained

The appeal was dismissed, and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal was upheld