Delay in filing FIR does not invalidate the claim if sufficient justification and evidence exist.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 18.11.2014 passed in MVC No.324/2011 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM and Additional MACT, Dharwad sitting at Navalgund.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

3. On 22.11.2010, at about 10.45 p.m., the petitioner was riding his brand new TVS Sports motorcycle from Alagwadi to Gobbargumpi slowly by observing the traffic rules. At that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 25/EE-1622 coming from the opposite direction, ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The owner of the offending motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the rider of the offending motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was valid. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending motorcycle.

5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, there is breach of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The petitioner to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25. Conversely, on the other hand, an official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 18.11.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,39,312/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till deposit. It is held that the respondents are liable to the pay the compensation to the petitioner and directed Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner.

9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.324/2011, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the alleged accident occurred on 22.11.2010, however, the complaint has been lodged on 06.12.2010, and there is delay of 14 days in filing the complaint. He submits that the wound certificate discloses that the petitioner was brought to the hospital on 23.11.2010 at 8.40 a.m., wherein the MLC i.e., as per Ex.P25, it discloses that he was admitted to the hospital on 23.11.2010, and not on 22.11.2010. Hence, it creates doubt regarding whether the petitioner has really sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has produced the wound certificate, which discloses that the petitioner was brought to the Government Hospital, Navalgund on 22.11.2010, but due to the oversight, it is written as 23.11.2010. He submits that on the next day, he got a