FAO No. 5476 of 2022 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

109

*****

FAO No. 5476 of 2022 (O & M)

Date of decision : 21.12.2022

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited &&Appellant

Vs.

Jyoti and others

&&Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:

Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate, for the appellant

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

This is an appeal filed by the Insurance company against the award

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short 8the

Tribunal9) dated 1.10.2022 awarding compensation to the respondents/

claimants on account of death of Rishi Parkash in a motor accident on

17.1.2021.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold arguments

before this Court to challenge the award in question. Firstly, it has been argued

that the FIR in question was lodged after eleven days9 delay, on 28.1.2021,

which itself establishes it to be a case of false implication of the offending

vehicle in the accident only to claim compensation from the Insurance

company. Secondly, it has been contended that it has come in evidence that the

deceased was drunk at the time of accident. Therefore, he himself was

responsible for causing the accident and it cannot be said that driver of the

offending vehicle was negligently driving the vehicle leading to accident in

question.

3.

Facts of the case as apparent on record are, the deceased was riding

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.12.23 12:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO No. 5476 of 2022 (O & M)

2

a motor cycle when he was hit from behind by the offending vehicle, i.e.,

Santro car, being driven by respondent no.4. Ex.P-14 is the MLR on record,

wherein it has been noted in the column of 8the reasons for the admission9 that

the patient was chronic alcoholic and smoker.

4.

The Tribunal while assessing the compensation has considered the

fact of delay in lodging the FIR as well as the fact of the deceased being a

chronic alcoholic and a smoker. On the date of the accident, injured Rishi

Parkash (since deceased) was admitted to Government Hospital, Sonepat on

17.1.2021 itself, when the police was informed about the accident in question.

The Investigating Officer had, in fact, visited the hospital. On coming to know

that Rishi Parkash had already been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, and from there

to FIMS Hospital, Sonepat, he went there. The doctor declared the injured, who

was in ICU, unfit to make a statement. Endorsement (Ex.P-4) further

established that on 19.1.2021 and on 23.1.2021, the Investigating Officer had

sought opinion of the doctor concerned for recording statement of the injured.

However, on both the occasions, he was declared unfit to make a statement. The

injured later died on 28.1.2021, when the FIR in question was lodged. In these

circumstances, in case there is any delay in lodging the FIR, the same cannot be

attributed to the claimants nor can it be taken to be a circumstance against them.

The claim for compensation cannot be declined merely because there is some

delay in lodging the FIR.

5.

Secondly, so far as the arguments regarding the deceased being

under the influence of liquor is concerned, the sole reliance has been placed on

MLR (Ex.P-14) recorded by the doctor concerned as well as the discharge

summary (Ex.P-8). The MLR records that at the time of examining general

condition of the deceased, he was drowsy, dis-oriented and smelling alcohol.

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.12.23 12:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO No. 5476 of 2022 (O & M)

3

This fact in itself is not sufficient to establish any negligence on the part of the

deceased in causing the accident in question. There is no other evidence on

record which could prima facie establish that the deceased contributed to the

accident in question in any manner. Even the driver