Delay in lodging the FIR should not be treated as fatal for motor accident claim cases if satisfactory and cogent reasons are provided.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.05.2012 of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, passed in M.V.O.P.No. 435 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.07.2008, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

On 28.07.2008 the petitioner and her husband were proceeding from Vadiyampeta to Kondapuram to call on her sister-in-law, namely, Punyavathi, who sustained electric shock, on a TVS XL bearing registration No. AP 02B 4994 and when they reached near Narpala cross roads, a tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 02W 7823 and AP 02W 7824 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction in wrong route and dashed against the TVS XL. Resultantly, the petitioner and her husband sustained injuries. On a report, a case in crime No. 90 of 2008 of B.K. Samudram P.S. was registered against the driver of the tractor-trailer. The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the tractor-trailer are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

4. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident and age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the driver of the tractor-trailer was holding driving licence to drive tractor-trailer non-transport, but he was driving the offending tractor-trailer transport and that there is a delay four days in filing the complaint.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 28.07.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. near Narpala cross roads was due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer bearing Nos. AP 02W 7823 and AP 02W 7824 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner received injuries in that accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent

4. To what relief?

6. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were marked and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and Exs.X.1 to X.4 were marked.

7. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal found that there was a delay in lodging the first information report and the reasons for the delay were not at all explained by the petitioner and that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Assailing the legal validity of the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal is preferred by the petitioner.

8. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

9. The proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are in the nature of summary enquiry, whereas in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.

10. The paramount question that falls for adjudication in this appeal is, whether the delay in lodging the first information report is a ground to doubt the case of the petitioner and whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

11. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Human natur