Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 857 (RAJ)

Iffco Tokio General v. Deepak Kumar

2022-03-11

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 01.06.2011, passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal and Special Judge (Dacoity Effected areas), Dholpur (for short 'learned Tribunal') in Motor accident Claim Case No. 262/2008, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,05,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 percent in favour of the claimant-respondent. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the sides, decided the claim petition in favour of the claimant-respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised objections on the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1, on the ground that there was a delay of 27 days in lodging of FIR. The accident occurred on 09.04.2008 and the FIR was lodged after a lapse of 27 days i.e. on 04.05.2008. So, delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt on the story of the accident. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that while determining the income of the claimant-respondent and while relying upon the permanent disability certificate i.e. Ex-15, the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the permanent disability certificate was not issued as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles act. 5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the eye witnesses of the accident were also not examined. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned award. Learned counsel further submitted that in the motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt on claimant's case. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of "Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors." reported in 2011 SCC (4) 693. Learned counsel further submitted that the permanent disability certificate i.e. Ex-15 was issued by the competent medical board of a Government Hospital. Thus, the genuineness of the permanent disability certificate Ex.-15 cannot be doubted. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the other relevant documents. 9. Thus, the genuineness of the permanent disability certificate Ex.-15 cannot be doubted. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the other relevant documents. 9. The question which arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is that whether delay in lodging the FIR of the accident could prove fatal as to result into dismissal of the claim petition filed by the claimant? 10. as per the averments made in the claim petition and as per the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion after considering the evidence led by both sides that the accident occurred on 09.04.2008 and immediately thereafter, the injured-claimant was admitted in the hospital at agra, where he remained admitted for his treatment for a considerable long time and it is quite natural for a human being that after sustaining injuries in an accident, he would get treatment and after recovery from the same, he would lodge the FIR. 11. Bare perusal of the record shows that FIR i.e. Ex.-2, was lodged on 04.05.2008 by the claimant after recovery and after thorough investigation, police submitted charge-sheet i.e. Ex.1, against the driver of the offending vehicle. 12. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Ravi (supra) has dealt with the issue which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal in Para Nos. 17 to 20 which reads thus:- "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. 18. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 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. 20. 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. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that MaCT as well as the High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim petition." 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that MaCT as well as the High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim petition." 13. In the light of the above cited judgment of Ravi (supra), the question raised in this appeal is answered that in motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground of doubt on the claimant's case, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. So far as the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant about the permanent disability certificate i.e. Ex.15 is concerned, the same has been issued by the Medical Board of the Government Hospital and there is no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of the same. 14. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent. 15. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. 16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.