Gopal Jani vs Harish & Others

The claimant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 25.08.2005 by which learned Additional Member, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Jobat has dismissed the claim case.Â

As per the claimant on 06.01.2004 he was going to office when the respondent No.1 while driving rashly and negligently his motorcycle No.M.P.-45-

B-4285 dashed him and because of which he received the injury on his right leg. He went to the Dahot (Gujrat) and thereafter got the treatment

hence, could not lodge the FIR immediately after accident. He became fit on 21.03.2004 and thereafter, he lodged an FIR against the respondent

No.1.

According to the claimant, he is in Government service as a Government Teacher and his salary was Rs.9,000/- per month. He was operated by

Dr. Vijay Thakur at Baroda but due to the said accident he became permanently disable. Hence, he is entitled for the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- as

compensation. Non-application Nos.1 & 2 filed a written statement denying the accident and involvement of the vehicle. Insurance Company

being non-applicant No.3 filed the written statement alleging that the non-applicant was not having valid license at the time of accident. The

claimant has prepared the false certificates and documents in respect of treatment and he is not entitled for compensation.

On the basis of pleadings, the learned MACT framed six issues for adjudication. In support of the claim, the claimant examined himself as PW1 who

was crossexamined by the counsel for non-applicants. The nonapplicant No.1 examined himself and denied the accident by his motorbike. The

Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses. In support of the claim, the claimant produced 53 documents as Exhibit P/1 to P/53. Exhibit P/1

to P/7 are the FIR and challan and the documents from P/8 to P/53 are the Medical bills, prescription and discharge tickets. The defendant filed the

certificate issued by the Block Education Officer that the claimant did not availed any leave from 06.01.2004.

The learned MACT has dismissed the claim case vide award dated 25.08.2005 mainly on the ground of delay in registration of FIR. However, the

Tribunal has also recorded the finding that the claimant has also failed to prove that he suffered the injuries due to said accident by the non-applicant

No.1, hence, the present appeal before this Court.

According to the claimant, immediately after the accident non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 assured him that they will bear the expenditure of the treatment

and they will also lodged report in the Police Station, therefore, under the said assurance he did not lodge the report and went to Baroda for treatment

& after coming back from Baroda, he came to know that they did not lodge the FIR and also declined to pay the amount of expenditure incurred in

treatment, hence, he lodged the FIR on 22.03.2004. In the FIR, he has specifically explained the delay in lodging the FIR as bykt djk dj okil vkus ijâ€â€

. In support of his claim, he produced the documents of his treatment and specially the discharge card as Exhibit P/26 in which the date of

admission is 07.01.2004 and date of discharge is 16.01.2004 are there. Under the head of investigation there is mention about the X-Ray of right

knee done and thereafter, he was operated.

Though, there is no MLC, but as per Exhibit P/26 it appears that he was admitted in a Government Hospital at Dahod on 07.01.2004 and remained

there upto 16.01.2004. Learned MACT did not considered the Exhibit P/6 while recording the finding.Â

In his evidence, he has specifically stated that nonapplicant No.1 is son of his officer, therefore, he believed on his statement that he will bear the

expenses of treatment. The non-applicant No.1 in his crossexamination has stated that his father is Education Officer and the claimant is working as a

Teacher in the Government School.Â

It is obvious that he was reluctant in lodging the FIR against the son of his officer, therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR is also justified. The non-

applicant No.1 has also admitted that he was prosecuted for this accident.Â

In the case ofRavi v/s Badrinarayan and others, reported in 2011 ACJ 911,Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the delay in lodging the FIR in case of

road accident is immaterial. For the sake of reference, para 20 to 22 are reproduced below :-

“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 rush to the Police Station. Under such

circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be

the ground to deny justice to the victim. 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.

21 The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR

certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so 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. There could be variety of

reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are

composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much

more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.â€​

In view of the above, appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the MACT, Jobat to decide the case on merits.