1. Motor accident claim — Fatal and injury claims arising from dumper accident — Tribunal rejected claims solely due to six-day delay in lodging FIR. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 642
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Shyam Lal Yadav, S/o Dataram Yadav - Appellant
Versus
United India General Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1394 OF 2023, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1202 OF 2023, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1387 OF 2023, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1388 OF 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni with Ms. Shara P. Rajora
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishipal Agarwal with Mr. Mihir Jangid, Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal with Mr. Harshit Mehta
For the Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni with Ms. Shara P. Rajora
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishipal Agarwal with Mr. Mihir Jangid, Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal with Mr. Harshit Mehta
Delay in lodging an FIR is not a valid ground for rejecting a motor accident claim petition, as priority given to medical treatment of victims is natural and condonable, provided there is no evidence of fabrication.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claim petitions for compensation - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 304A - Delay in lodging FIR - Rejection of claim petition on technical grounds - In a motor accident involving death and grievous injuries, it is natural for kith and kin to prioritize medical treatment over the immediate lodging of an FIR (Paras 9 and 10) - Such delay cannot be the sole basis for doubting the claimant's case or rejecting the claim petition (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
The claimants filed petitions for compensation following a vehicle accident that resulted in one fatality and multiple grievous injuries. The FIR was registered six days after the incident. The Tribunal rejected the claims on the technical ground of this delay and the fact that the offending vehicle was not seized by the police immediately on the spot.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that family members of the deceased and injured are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging an FIR when lives are at stake. Delay in lodging the FIR, particularly for claimants from rural areas who may be unaware of legal niceties, is natural and should not be treated as fatal to the proceedings.
Issues: Whether a claim petition can be rejected solely on the technical ground of a slight delay in lodging the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delay in lodging an FIR is not a ground to deny justice to the victim unless the evidence indicates fabrication or that the case was concocted to implicate innocent persons. The authenticity of the FIR is more significant than the delay, which is condonable when the claimants are dealing with the mental agony of death and serious injuries to family members.
Result: Impugned judgment quashed and set aside; matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimant argued claim cannot be rejected for technical delay; respondents contended delay unjustified and vehicle involvement doubtful. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. In accident cases, delay in FIR is natural due to family priorities; claimants cannot be blamed for police failure; delay not fatal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Claim petition cannot be dismissed merely on ground of delay in lodging FIR if accident proved and no fabrication indicated. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal partly allowed; Tribunal's judgment quashed; matter remitted for fresh adjudication on merits with hearing to parties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
6. Can a motor accident claim petition be rejected solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR?
No. Delay in lodging FIR cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a claim petition; it is a technical ground and claims should be decided on merits unless fabrication is indicated. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. When delay in FIR is alleged, what must courts examine before rejecting a claim?
Courts must scrutinize evidence and FIR contents carefully; if no fabrication or implication of innocent persons, delay alone is not fatal. (Para 11 )
8. Is failure of police to seize the vehicle at the spot a valid ground to reject a claim?
No, claimants cannot be blamed for police failure to record incident or seize vehicle; such failure does not justify rejection of claim. (Para 9 , 10 )
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and these appeals are de-cided by this common order.
2. For convenience, the facts narrated in civil misc. appeal No. 1394/2023 is taken into consideration. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kotputali, District Jaipur in MAC case No. 289/2021 by which the claim peti- tion submitted by the claimant has been rejected by this common order.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant (hereinafter re- ferred to as “claimant”) submits that on 19.12.2020, an accident was caused by a dumper bearing No. RJ-05-GB-6684 and the driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle was driving in a rash and negligent manner wherein Gokul Chand Swami sustained certain injuries and died on the spot and the injured Shayamlal was ad- mitted in a hospital where his head was operated and Hariram the other injured and Ambalal were also admitted in the hospital. The treatment was provided to them for the injuries sustained by them. Counsel submits that the report of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 25.12.2020 and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and thereafter, all these claim petitions were submitted before the Tribunal seeking suitable amount of compensation by different claimants.
4. Counsel submits that all the four claims have been rejected by the learned Tribunal on a technical ground of delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR. Counsel submits that a claim petition cannot be rejected on a technical ground rather the same should have been decided on merits by the Tribunal, hence such interference of this Court is warranted.
5. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respon- dents oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that no justification has been provided for the inor- dinate delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and the involvement of the fact is doubtful as the police reached on the spot immediately after the accident and the said offending vehicle was not seized by the police. Hence, involvement of the people appears to be doubt- ful and under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed an error in rejecting the claim petitions and the same needs no in- terference of this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
7. Perusal of the record indicates that the claimant has met with an accident on 19.12.2020 wherein one person Gokul Chand Swami (deceased) has sustain certain injuries and he died on the spot and rest of the injured has sustained injuries and they were admitted in the hospital for their treatment. This fact is not in dis- pute that an FIR of the aforesaid incident has been registered af- ter a delay of 6 days, i.e., 25.12.2020 and this fact is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was also seized on the said day.
8. The Tribunal has recorded a detailed finding about the in- volvement of the vehicle in question in the aforesaid incident and was of the view that when the accident occurred and the police came on the spot, then why the matter was not reported to the police and why the police has not seized the vehicle immediately on the spot. On this ground alone, the claim petition submitted by the claimant has been rejected.
9. In the considered view of this Court, when such unfortunate incident has occurred wherein one person has lost his eyes and three persons have sustained grievous injuries on their vital parts of the body, it was not expected from the family members of the deceased and the injured to lodge an FIR first, and then take their family members to the hospital to s
