Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Om Prakash Soni S/o Shri Seduram Soni – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Singh & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2114/2010
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Delay in lodging FIR - Motor Accident Claims - 2006 (3) T.A.C. 745, 2007 (1) T.A.C. 899, 2004 R.A.R 543 (Raj.), (2007) 1 (Raj.) MACD 361, 1 (2005) ACC 458 (DB), (2011) 4 SCC 693 - The court discussed the delay in lodging FIR and its impact on the claim for compensation. The judgment referred to various cases and emphasized that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claim of the injured/deceased. The court also highlighted the importance of eye-witness testimony and the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the judgment and award passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur, awarding compensation to the claimant-respondent for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The appellant-Insurance Company argued that the delay in lodging FIR and lack of eye-witnesses raised doubts about the claim. The claimant-respondent contended that the delay was due to injuries and relied on the findings of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi Vs. Badri Narayan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging FIR due to the claimant's injuries was justified and not a ground for denial of compensation. It upheld the findings of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.
Issues: Delay in lodging FIR, involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, and the adequacy of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging FIR due to the claimant's injuries was justified, and the findings of the Tribunal on the involvement of the insured vehicle were upheld. The delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claim of the injured/deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company was dismissed, and the court upheld the award passed by the Tribunal in favor of the claimant-respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award, hence same are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur in MAC No.308/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ’Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,79,763/- in favour of the claimantrespondent on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 17.07.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred on 17.07.2009 in front of the Police Station but the FIR was lodged after a delay of eighteen days i.e on 04.08.2009. counsel further submitted that no explanation about delay in lodging FIR has been given by the claimant-respondent. He also submitted that in his crossexamination, the claimant has admitted that after the accident, he went to the Police Station but even then he did not lodge the FIR.
4. He further submitted that the vehicle was seized by the police after a lapse of long time and mere filing of charge-sheet is not sufficient in motor accident case to get compensation.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand : 2006 (3) T.A.C. 745, Lalit Chouhan Vs. Shakeel Mohd : 2007 (1) T.A.C. 899, Mala Ram vs. Roopa Ram : 2004 R.A.R 543 (Raj.), Rajender Vs. Om Prakash & Ors. : (2007) 1 (Raj.) MACD 361 and Kokila Bai Vs. Abdul Bahav : 1 (2005) ACC 458 (DB).
6. Lastly, he argued that no eye-witness of said accident was examined and circumstances narrated above create doubt about the involvement of the vehicle. Hence the Tribunal has committed gross error in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimantrespondent.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellantInsurance Company and submitted that the accident occurred on 17.07.2009 and the same was caused by the driver of Car bearing No. RJ-14-CE-7871 and immediately after the accident, the claimant-respondent went to the Police Station but he was not in a position to write and lodge the FIR because of the pain and injuries suffered by him.
8. He further submitted that after the accident, the claimantrespondent was admitted in Agrawal Hospital, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur on the same day i.e. 21.07.2009 and it was noted by the doctors of the hospital that the claimant-respondent has sustained injuries in road traffic accident which was occurred on 17.07.2009. Thereafter, he remained admitted in the said hospital till 28.07.2009 and after recovery he lodged the FIR on 04.08.2009. He further submitted that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground for denial of compensation.
9. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Ravi Vs. Badri Narayan : (2011) 4 SCC 693.
10. He also submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 have been proved beyond doubt and it is established by cogent evidence that the insured vehicle in the present case was the only vehicle with which the said accident occurred and the claimant-respondent has sustained injuries. Thus, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity.
11. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides.
12. From perusal of the statements of the claimant-Om Prakash Soni, it is clear that he was hit by Car No. RJ-14-CE-7871 on 17.07.2009 due to which he sustained injuries and immediately after the accident, he went inside the Police Station but could not write and lodge the FIR due to pain and injuries suffered by him and thereafter the police personnel of Police Station took him into the hospital where there was only one doctor who refused to provide the treatment to him. Thereafter, he was
Delay in lodging FIR due to the claimant's injuries was justified, and the delay cannot be a ground to doubt the claim of the injured/deceased.
The delay in lodging the FIR should not be treated as fatal for motor accident claim cases if satisfactory and cogent reasons are demonstrated.
Delay in filing FIR should not be fatal for claim proceedings if satisfactory and cogent reasons for the delay are demonstrated by the claimant.
Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition, and the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than the delay in lodging it, supported by cogent r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
