Delay in lodging an FIR in motor accident claims is not fatal if explained by cogent reasons; however, the absence of medical evidence linking injuries to a vehicle accident and failure to justify the delay can lead to the rejection of the claim.

ORDER

1. Heard on IA No. 683/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing of the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

3. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the award dated 25/10/2016 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”), District Morena (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 140/2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., the appellant/claimant was returning home from school. While he had stopped by the roadside below the valley of Udaypura to urinate, a vehicle bearing registration No. MP06-JA-3845, driving by respondent No.2, came from the Udaypura side and allegedly hit the claimant. It was stated that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. Due to the accident, the claimant fell on the road and sustained serious injuries to his right leg below the knee, right palm, and chest. The right femur bone was fractured, and he suffered other minor injuries, due to which he was allegedly unable to walk, run, or perform daily activities. The incident was reported at Police Station Chinnouni, District Morena, and Crime No. 98/2014 was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The respondents filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

5. After framing the issues and recording evidence of both the parties, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal contending that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to law and principles of justice and is therefore liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed a charge-sheet against him. Hence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have presumed negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that the Claims Tribunal wrongly discarded the evidence of the claimant and misinterpreted the material on record, including the FIR and charge-sheet, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is prayed that impugned award be set-aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and prayed for rejection of this misc. appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the Claims Tribunal.

9. It is undisputed that the accident is alleged to have occurred on 26.06.2014, whereas the FIR was lodged on 12.08.2014. Thus, there is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR. It is a settled principle of law that delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to a criminal case or a motor accident claim, provided sufficient and cogent reasons for such delay are satisfactorily explained.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others , AIR 2011 SC 1226