The delay in lodging of FIR cannot be a ground to deny justice to the victim. However, in cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.

This Misc.Appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for brevity "the Act") has been filed by the appellant-Shriram General

Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Insurance

Company") against the impugned award dated 15.3.2022 passed by the Sixth

Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal [for short "the Tribunal"],

by

which,

it

awarded

compensation

of

Rs.13,30,600/-

to

the

respondents/claimants on account of death of their son in motor accident.

2

. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 &

2/claimants, who are parents of the deceased-Mahesh Rathore, filed claim

petition under section 166 of the Act contending that on 20.4.2019 at about 7.35

p.m. when deceased-Mahesh Rathore was going alongwith his friend on his

motor-cycle at that juncture a car bearing registration No.MP-04/BC-0956

which was driving rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased

causing him grievous injuries to the deceased on his vital parts of body.

Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died during treatment on

21.4.2019 at Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal. Accordingly, offence was registered at

Police Station, Satlapur, Mandideep, District Raisen. The respondents/claimants

filed claim petition claiming compensation jointly and severally against owner,

driver and insurers of the offending vehicle.

3 . The respondents No.3 & 4 (non-applicants No.1 & 2) remained

2

e x parte before the Tribunal and did not file written statement. The

appellant/Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 filed written statement

denying all the adverse allegations and contended that offence has been

registered after about one month six days against unknown vehicle and

thereafter 2 months and 04 days of accident the vehicle has been involved on

30.6.2019. The respondent/non-applicant no.1 himself reached to the Police

Station and got his vehicle seized. This shows that a false case has been

registered against the said vehicle just to realize amount of compensation from

the Insurance Company. Alternatively, breach of terms and conditions of the

insurance policy has been contended.

4 . The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed issues

and on recording of evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties passed

the impugned award directing to pay amount of compensation of

Rs.13,30,600/- to the respondents/claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 6%

p.a. from the filing of the claim petition till realisation.

5 . Being aggrieved with the impugned award the appellant/Insurance

Company has filed this appeal on the ground that Tribunal apparently erred in

law as well as on facts in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay

compensation. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse, illegal and

bad in law and deserves to be set aside as against the appellant. The accident is

dated 20.4.2019 and FIR has been lodged with delay of about 01 month and 06

days on 26.5.2019 against unknown vehicle and till that time there was no

revelation of said offending vehicle even in the statements taken in marg enquiry.

To prove that car (MP-04/BC-0956) has falsely been involved in the accident,

appellant/Insurance Company also adduced evidence of Investigator (Saurabh

Dilodare) as Non-applicant Witness No.1. Hence, prayed that the impugned

3

award as against Insurance Company be set aside.

6

. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has

supported the impugned award and prayed to dismissed the appeal.

7 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

of the Tribunal. On perusal of FIR (Exhibit-P/2) it reflects that it was lodged on

26.5.2019 and Marg No.12/2019 under section 174 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-P/8)

shows that information was given by the Hospital in relation to death of

deceased on 21.4.2019. Exhibit-P/11 is 'Naksha Panchnama' reflects that death

of deceased occurred due to accident. Accordingly, the FIR (Exhibit-P/2) it is

specifically mentioned that unknown vehicle dashed th