1. Motor accident claim — Dispute over cause of injury (collision vs. skid and fall) — Tribunal dismissal reversed by High Court. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1313
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
VERSUS
Velu & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32138 of 2018
Decided On : 12-12-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Injuries sustained in motor accident – In a given case delayed FIR will not matter – Merely because FIR has been delayed claim cannot be rejected.
Injuries sustained in motor accident – In a given case delayed FIR will not matter – Merely because FIR has been delayed claim cannot be rejected.
Subject
Insurance Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Injuries sustained in motor accident – In a given case delayed FIR will not matter – Merely because FIR has been delayed claim cannot be rejected but in present case considering that all available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident, delayed FIR also require a relevance, particularly when FIR itself has not been proceeded – Even police in FIR also came to conclusion that there was no motor accident and had filed a closure report – Order of High Court is not sustainable for simple reason that there was not even an iota of evidence before Tribunal or before High Court to have shown that injuries was sustained in a motor accident except for delayed FIR – Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
Respondent no.1 (injured) was the claimant in a motor accident claim as he was sustained injuries which he claimed had occurred due to a motor accident while he was driving his two wheeler scooter and he collided and met with an accident with a four wheeler-lorry on 27.12.2011 and he had filed a claim petition for Rupees Twenty lakh before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai. However, Tribunal had found no evidence of a motor accident.
Findings of Court:
Order dated 05.07.2018 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Delayed FIR may not defeat a motor accident claim where other evidence supports the claim; however, in this case all available evidence pointed to a skid and fall, not a motor accident, and the FIR itself had not been proceeded. (!) - Tribunal had found no evidence of a motor accident; discharge summaries indicated injuries due to skid and fall, and FIR delay of 34 days; police closure report supported no motor accident. (!) - The High Court’s order was set aside; the petitioner's insurance company’s prayer was allowed. (!) - The Supreme Court held that there was not even an iota of evidence before the Tribunal or High Court showing that injuries were sustained in a motor accident except for the delayed FIR. (!) - The order of the High Court was not sustainable because of lack of evidence of a motor accident; the delayed FIR alone cannot establish the claim in this case. (!) - The present petition is disposed of in terms of setting aside the High Court’s order. (!) (!)
What is the applicability of delayed FIR in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act?
What is the evidentiary weight of a delayed FIR when other evidence points to a skid and fall rather than a motor accident?
What are the consequences for an High Court/Tribunal order when the evidence does not support a motor accident claim but there is a delayed FIR?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Salil Paul, Adv. Mr. Sahil Paul, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mr. Sandeep Dayal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Ms. M.B.Ramya, Adv. Mr. P.B.Sashaankh, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Salil Paul, Adv. Mr. Sahil Paul, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mr. Sandeep Dayal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Ms. M.B.Ramya, Adv. Mr. P.B.Sashaankh, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Yadav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Insurance company contested the High Court's award, arguing that medical evidence contradicted the claim of a motor accident despite the filing of an FIR. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Medical records consistently indicated a skid and fall; a delayed FIR is insufficient evidence when contradicted by medical reports and a police closure report. (Para 2 )
4. A motor accident claim cannot be sustained solely on a delayed FIR if medical evidence and police reports negate the occurrence of an accident. (Para 2 )
5. Petition allowed — High Court order set aside. (Para 3 )
6. Does a delay in filing an FIR automatically justify the rejection of a motor accident claim?
No, a mere delay in filing an FIR cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a claim. However, if other available evidence points toward a different cause of injury, the delayed FIR lacks relevance. (Para 2 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of medical discharge summaries in motor accident claims?
Medical records, such as discharge summaries specifying the cause of injury (e.g., skid and fall), constitute material evidence that can override a claimant's assertion of a motor accident. (Para 1 , 2 )
8. Can a claim be sustained if the police file a closure report stating no accident occurred?
If the police conclude there was no motor accident and file a closure report, and there is no other evidence to prove the accident, the claim is unsustainable. (Para 2 )
ORDER
The respondent no.1 (injured) was the claimant in a motor accident claim as he was sustained injuries which he claimed had occurred due to a motor accident while he was driving his two wheeler scooter and he collided and met with an accident with a four wheeler-lorry on 27.12.2011 and he had filed a claim petition for Rupees Twenty lakh before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”). However, the Tribunal had found no evidence of a motor accident inasmuch as the entire details of the hospital where the injuries were examined and treated showed that the same were sustained due to skid and fall from scooter. This is what has been noted in the discharge summary given by the hospital and the respondent no.1 claiming that he was admitted and subsequently he was discharged and thereafter when he was took treatment from another hospital the same reason was written in the discharge summary from that hospital too that accident occurred due to skid and fall. For this reason, the Tribunal have not found any evidence as to the motor accident and has dismissed the claim of the respondent no.1 particularly in view of the fact and also taken into consideration that the FIR bearing No.94/2012 was lodged on 30.01.2012 whereas the accident itself took place on 27.12.2011. The FIR itself was lodged after a delay of 34 days. The matter was taken in appeal where the order/award of the Tribunal has been set aside by the High court on the ground that mere delay of FIR cannot be a ground of rejecting the claim of the respondent no.1 and ordered the claim of Rupees Eleven lakh fifty thousand along with interest @ 7.5 % with a period of six weeks. In default the chairman of the petitioner-insurance company will be present in the High Court.
2. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and we do not think that the order of the High Court is sustainable for the simple reason that there was not even an iota of evidence before the Tribunal or before the High Court to have shown that the injuries was sustained in a motor accident except for the delayed FIR. In a given case a delayed FIR will not matter. Merely because the FIR has been delayed a claim cannot be rejected but in the present case considering that all the available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident, the delayed FIR also, require a relevance, particularly now we have been told that FIR itself has not been proceeded. Even the police in the FIR also came to the conclusion that there was no motor accident and had filed a closure report.
3. Under these circumstances, we allow the prayer of the petitioner-insurance company and set aside the order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
4. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any.
