Delay in filing FIR does not bar claims if cogent reasons are provided; discrepancies in witness accounts can undermine claim validity.

ORDER This misc. appeal by the Insurance Company u/S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is arising out of the Award dated 17.09.2021 passed by Additional MACT to the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short "Claims Tribunal") Lahar, District- Bhind (M.P.) in MACC No.07/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,40,950/- with interest in favour of claimants (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) from the date of filing of claiming petition till its realization.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2017, when Gurusharan (since deceased) was going on his cycle towards petrol pump for some work, at the same time, Vinod Kumar Soni, by driving his motorcycle bearing Signature Not Verified registration number MP 07-MZ-0339 in rash and negligent manner hit him, as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and thereafter, he was admitted to Relief Hospital, Gwalior and during treatment, he succumbed to injuries. A report of the incident was lodged by son of deceased- Sonu at Police Station- Daboh, on the basis of which, police registered a case vide Crime No.32/17 against the driver of offending vehicle under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Due to death of deceased Gurusharan, his legal representatives, i.e. son and wife have filed a claim petition seeking compensation before the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal vide impugned Award awarded compensation in favour of claimants, as stated above.

3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned Award, the instant misc.

appeal has been filed by Insurance Company with submissions that the owner of offending vehicle Registration No.MP 07 MZ 0339 is in hand in glove with the claimants and the claimants have conspired the insured vehicle after delay of more than two months of the accident to get the compensation from the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal has committed an error in fixing liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. It is further contended that the claimants' witnesses Sonu (AW-1) & Lalta Prasad (AW-2) in their statement before the police recorded under Section 161 of CrPC stated that Karu @ Naresh has caused the accident and thereafter, they changed their version by deposing that Vinod Kumar Soni - driver of insured vehicle, has caused the alleged Signature Not Verified accident. The Claims Tribunal has passed the impugned Award without going thoroughly through the evidence of the witnesses and has committed an error in awarding the compensation in favour of the claimants. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned Award.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned Award and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Award as well as record of the Claims Tribunal.

6. The only question for determination of this appeal is as to whether driver of offending vehicle was falsely planted in the accident to get compensation amount by the claimants from the Insurance Company or not?

7. It is true that if the claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. then delay in lodging F.I.R. should not be treated as fatal for such proceeding. The Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20 and 21 has held as under:-

"20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to