Delay in FIR Cannot Be Sole Ground to Dismiss Accident Claims, Rules Karnataka High Court

DHARWAD: In a significant ruling reinforcing a victim-centric approach in motor accident cases, the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has held that a delay in lodging a police complaint (FIR) cannot, by itself, be a reason to dismiss a compensation claim. The court emphasized that the immediate priority for accident victims and their families is medical treatment, not rushing to a police station.

The decision was delivered by Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha while allowing two appeals filed by a couple, Shri Pandurang and Smt. Mangal Shivane, whose claim petitions had been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Belgaum.

---

Case Background

The appellants, Shri Pandurang, a military service member, and his wife Smt. Mangal, were injured on February 17, 2013. They were traveling on a motorcycle when another motorcycle, driven rashly and negligently, collided with them. Both sustained injuries and filed separate claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, dismissed their petitions on September 10, 2014. The primary reason for the dismissal was the 12-day delay in filing a police complaint, which was lodged on March 1, 2013. The Tribunal found that the claimants had failed to prove they were injured in a road traffic accident due to this delay. Aggrieved by this decision, the couple appealed to the High Court.

Arguments Presented

The appellants, represented by Smt. Soubhagya Vakkund, argued that the delay was justified. They contended that immediately following the accident, their focus was on receiving medical treatment and attending to each other's injuries. They submitted that the police had investigated the matter after the complaint was filed and had even filed a charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle. The appellants asserted that the wound certificates clearly mentioned "Road Traffic Accident (RTA)," corroborating their claim.

The respondent, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by Sri. Suresh S. Gundi, defended the Tribunal's order. They argued that the significant delay was unexplained and that even the hospital authorities had not intimated the police about the accident, which cast doubt on the genuineness of the claim.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedent

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, disagreeing with the Tribunal's findings, observed that the failure of hospital authorities to inform the police should not prejudice the claimants' right to compensation.

The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others, [2011 ACJ 911] , which addressed the issue of delayed FIRs in accident claims. Quoting the Apex Court, Justice Sumalatha highlighted the human element involved:

> "It is well settled that delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station."

The judgment further articulated that while courts must scrutinize cases with delayed FIRs carefully, a claim cannot be dismissed solely on this ground if there is no evidence of fabrication or malicious intent.

Justice Sumalatha stated:

> "One should remember that law has not fixed any time limit for lodging complaint to police. Whether delay in setting the law into motion is fatal or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case... where the delay is due to genuine cause coupled sometimes with inability to approach police immediately, then such delay cannot come in the way of victim to get justice."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's common order of dismissal. The matter has been remanded back to the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, with a directive to restore the cases and decide them afresh on merits, taking into account the evidence on record and the principles laid down by the High Court.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to tribunals to adopt a pragmatic and compassionate approach, recognizing the trauma and practical difficulties faced by accident victims, rather than dismissing genuine claims on technical grounds like procedural delays.