Motor Accident Claims | Delay in FIR Lodging Not Fatal to Compensation : Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that delay in lodging an FIR cannot be a ground to deny compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The judgment emphasizes that human considerations like hospitalization take precedence over mechanical procedural requirements, particularly when the claimant demonstrates bona fide reasons for the delay.

Background & Facts

The Accident

On 20 December 2022, the claimant, Kuldeep Singh Rajpoot, was traveling on his scooter when a car bearing registration number MP-37-C-1464 struck him from behind near Village Piliya Jod on the Old Sehore-Bhopal National Highway. The impact caused severe injuries, including head trauma, necessitating immediate medical attention.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 20 December 2022: Accident occurred; claimant hospitalized for 14 days
• Post-hospitalization: FIR lodged after recovery
• 2023: Claim filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sehore (Claim Case No. 78/2023)
• 22 May 2024: Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹2,39,000 to the claimant
• 2024: Insurance company filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6147 of 2024 challenging the award

The Insurance Company's Objections

The appellant, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the Tribunal's award on two primary grounds:

1. Absence of eye-witness testimony regarding the accident
2. Delay in lodging the FIR, arguing that this cast doubt on the claim's veracity

The Legal Issue

The central question before the High Court was whether delay in lodging an FIR could be treated as a fatal defect in a motor accident compensation claim under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly when the claimant had valid reasons for the delay.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant (Insurance Company)

The insurance company contended that:

• The absence of an immediate FIR undermined the credibility of the claim
• No eye-witnesses were examined, leaving the accident's circumstances unverified
• The Tribunal erred in awarding compensation without strict proof of the accident's occurrence

For the Respondent (Claimant)

The claimant argued that:

• The 14-day hospitalization provided a bona fide reason for the delayed FIR
• The Tribunal had correctly evaluated the evidence, including medical records and the accident's circumstances
• The Supreme Court's precedent in Ravi v. Badrinarayan supported the view that delay in FIR lodging is not fatal to compensation claims

The Court's Analysis

The High Court conducted a two-pronged analysis of the case:

1. Evaluation of Delay in FIR Lodging The Court observed that the claimant was hospitalized for 14 days, which constituted a grievous hurt under the law. This period of medical treatment provided a legitimate explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ravi v. Badrinarayan, which held:

"Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it."

The Court emphasized that human considerations - such as the need for medical treatment - must take precedence over mechanical procedural requirements. It noted that the authenticity of the FIR and the cogency of the claimant's reasons for delay were more critical than the delay itself.

1. Assessment of Evidence The Court examined the documentary evidence, including medical records and the claimant's hospitalization details. It found that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the insurance company's objections were without merit. The Court held that the absence of eye-witness testimony did not vitiate the claim, as the circumstantial evidence and medical records sufficiently established the accident's occurrence.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and affirmed the Tribunal's award of ₹2,39,000. The Court directed the insurance company to comply with the award in its true spirit, holding that:

• Delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to a motor accident compensation claim if the claimant demonstrates valid reasons, such as hospitalization
• The burden of proof does not shift entirely to the claimant merely due to procedural delays
• Documentary evidence, such as medical records, can sufficiently establish the accident's occurrence even in the absence of eye-witness testimony

What This Means For Similar Cases

Delay in FIR Lodging Cannot Defeat Compensation

Practitioners should note that:

• Hospitalization or medical treatment provides a valid justification for delayed FIR lodging
• Courts will scrutinize the reasons for delay rather than dismiss claims outright
• The authenticity of the FIR and cogency of the claimant's explanation are more critical than the delay itself

Documentary Evidence Prevails Over Procedural Technicalities

• Medical records and hospitalization details can substantiate claims even without eye-witness testimony
• Insurance companies cannot rely solely on procedural delays to contest compensation awards
• Tribunals and courts will evaluate the overall evidence before rejecting claims on technical grounds

Insurance Companies Must Reassess Their Defense Strategies

• Automatic challenges based on FIR delays are unlikely to succeed if the claimant provides valid reasons
• Rigorous evidence collection is necessary to contest claims, rather than relying on procedural technicalities
• Precedents like Ravi v. Badrinarayan must be carefully considered before filing appeals on similar grounds