Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 653 (MP)

Kapil v. Shekhar

2018-07-25

VIVEK RUSIA

body2018
ORDER 1. Present appeal has been filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 22.7.2015 passed in Claim Case No. 53/2015, by which the MACT, Barwani. 2. Present appellant met with an accident on 17.3.2013 at 7.30 p.m. by Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP-09-BB-0126 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2. Due to the said accident, the appellant received internal injuries and immediately admitted in the primary health centre, Rajpur. The accident was reported to the police by way of MLC, thereafter, he was referred to the District Hospital, Barwani and further referred to Indore. The appellant was hospitalÁed in Mayank Hospital for the period from 18.3.2013 to 26.3.2013. The FIR was recorded on 28.3.2013 under sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant filed claim case before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs. 12,50,000/-. After notice, the defendant No. 1 and 2 appeared and did not dispute the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and further submitted that the vehicle was insured and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 3. Respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company filed written statement denying liability by alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and false implication of the offending vehicle as there was delay in lodging FIR. 4. Appellant examined himself as PW1 and one Alok as PW2. In rebuttal, the respondents did not examined any witness. The claimant got exhibited 105 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-105 in respect of treatment and expenditure. 5. Learned MACT, after appreciating the evidence on record assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,31,311/- along with interest, but dismissed the claim on the ground of delay in lodging FIR. According to the MACT, there was delay in filing FIR, therefore, suspicion arises as to why FIR was not lodged immediately after the accident. Learned MACT has also disbelieved the statement of Alok (PW2 ), who claimed himself to be eye witness. Vide award dated 22.7.2015, entire claim case has been dismissed by learned MACT. 6. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether learned MACT has rightly dismissed the claim on account of delay in lodging FIR. 7. Learned MACT has also disbelieved the statement of Alok (PW2 ), who claimed himself to be eye witness. Vide award dated 22.7.2015, entire claim case has been dismissed by learned MACT. 6. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether learned MACT has rightly dismissed the claim on account of delay in lodging FIR. 7. Claimant Kapil PW1 has stated that due to the said road accident, he suffered internal injuries and he immediately approached the primary health centre, Rajpur and since the injuries were serious in nature, therefore, he was referred to District Hospital, Barwani. The doctor was of the opinion that spleen has ruptured and required to be removed, thereafter, he was referred to hospital at Indore. He got admitted in Mayank Hospital for the period from 18.3.2013 and remained there upto 26.3.2013. In respect of medical treatment, he produced as many 106 documents, therefore, there is no dispute that after the accident, he remained under treatment till 26.3.2013 and after the discharge from the hospital, he lodged FIR on 28.3.2013. In column 8 of the FIR, reason for delay is written as ^^bZykt gsrq ckgj bUnkSj tkus ls okil vkus ds cknA** 8. In MLC Ex-P-6 and Ex.-P-7, there is mention about admission of the appellant due to the injuries received in road accident. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in primary health centre and thereafter he got admitted in Mayank Hospital, Indore from 18.3.2013 to 26.3.2013, therefore, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in lodging FIR. The appellant/claimant has successfully explained the delay. In the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others, reported in 2011 ACJ 911 , Hon'ble apex Court has found that in the case of road accident, delay of three months in lodging FIR is justified. For the sake of reference, paras 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. 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 scrutinÁed 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. 22 In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not appreciating the mental agony through which Suresh was passing, whose son was severely injured. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned award dated 22.7.2015 is set aside. 22 In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not appreciating the mental agony through which Suresh was passing, whose son was severely injured. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned award dated 22.7.2015 is set aside. So far as it relates to the dismissal of the claim on the ground of delay, the amount of the award assessed by the MACT be paid to the claimant as there is no cross-appeal by the respondents. Present appeal stands allowed accordingly.