Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Arvind Chauhan & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This is insurer’s appeal against the judgment and award dated 06.05.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in

Motor Accident Claims Case No.187 of 2015, whereby a sum of Rs.4,88,457/- along with interest @ 8% per annum has been awarded to the claimant

who was injured in a road accident..

The claimant (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital claiming

Rs.38,75,000/- as compensation for the physical disability suffered by him, meeting medical expenses, loss of earning capacity as well as pain and

suffering. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,88,457/- vide order dated 06.05.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved, Shriram General Insurance

Company Ltd. (Insurer) has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.

The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition by ignoring the delay of

more than five months in filing FIR by the claimant.

A perusal of the impugned award reveals that learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue of delay in lodging the FIR in great detail in para 13 to 16 of

the award. Learned Tribunal has noted the fact that the claimant had sent the information, regarding the accident to the Senior Superintendent of

Police, Nainital, by post on 22.09.2015 while the accident occurred on 24.04.2015. It has further been noted that based on the said information, chick

FIR was registered on 21.10.2015. The insurer company had admitted before the Tribunal that based on the FIR, a charge sheet has also been filed in

the court. Learned Tribunal has accepted the explanation offered by the claimant that due to accident, he remained hospitalized from 24.04.2015 to

31.05.2015 and since he was completely immobilized due to the injuries sustained in the road accident, therefore, claimant could not register FIR in

time. Learned Tribunal has further observed in para 16 of the impugned award that the claimant had made efforts to lodge FIR regarding the accident,

which was not registered, therefore, he had to seek intervention of the SSP, Nainital.

It is thus apparent that learned MACT has considered and discussed the matter in great detail and this Court does not find any infirmity in the

reasoning given by learned Tribunal. It is not the case of the appellant that the contents of FIR are fabricated or engineered to build a false case for

compensation. In the absence of such plea by the appellant, learned Tribunal was justified in holding that accident was caused by Dumper No.

HR38J/1086, which was insured with the appellant.

Even otherwise also, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,38,457/- towards medical expenses, as the surveyor of the Insurance Company

had verified the medical bills submitted by the claimant. An additional sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the claimant on account of his

hospitalization in three different hospitals and other miscellaneous expenses, including those incurred for special and nutritious diet. Thus, the amount

of compensation of Rs.4,88,457/- awarded as compensation to the claimant cannot be said to be on the higher side.

Even otherwise also, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs Badrinarayan & others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 has held that

delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to deny justice to the claimant. Para 17 to 19 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

“17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the 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 scrutinised more carefully. If the 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. 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 the 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 a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the

victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity 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€​

Since learned counsel for the appellant has urged only one ground, namely, delay in lodging the FIR, which is without substance in view of the

discussion made above, and no other ground was urged by learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, I find no merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, appeal from order fails and is dismissed. Registry is directed to remit the Statutory amount, deposited by the appellant, to the

concerned Tribunal within four weeks.