Delay In FIR Not Fatal In Motor Accident Claims As Families First Rush Victims To Hospital: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has observed that delay in lodging an FIR in motor accident cases cannot be treated as fatal, noting that in Indian society the immediate priority of family members is to rush the injured to hospital rather than approach the police.Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited against...
The Calcutta High Court has observed that delay in lodging an FIR in motor accident cases cannot be treated as fatal, noting that in Indian society the immediate priority of family members is to rush the injured to hospital rather than approach the police.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited against a compensation award passed in favour of the family of a deceased accident victim.
The case arose from a road accident that occurred on 22 May 2018 on the Midnapore–Raniganj NH-60 road. The victim, Shuvendu Bhattacharyya, a primary school teacher, was standing beside his motorcycle when a Maruti Omni van allegedly driven rashly and negligently hit him from behind.
He sustained severe head injuries and was first admitted to Midnapore Medical College and later shifted to S.S.K.M. Hospital in Kolkata, where he succumbed to his injuries on 24 May 2018.
His wife and children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹44.91 lakh with 6% interest, directing the insurer to pay the amount.
Before the High Court, the insurer contended that the involvement of the vehicle was doubtful since the FIR initially mentioned an unknown vehicle and the vehicle was seized later during investigation. It also argued that consortium awarded to the children was legally unsustainable.
The High Court rejected the insurer's argument regarding delay in the FIR. The Court observed that when a person is injured in an accident, family members usually rush the victim to hospital rather than immediately approach the police.
The Court also noted that since the complainant was not an eyewitness, it was natural that the vehicle number was not mentioned in the FIR. Once the police identified and seized the vehicle during investigation, the seizure and charge-sheet could not be dismissed merely because the Investigating Officer was not examined.
The Court relied on the testimony of an eyewitness, who clearly described the manner in which the accident occurred, and held that his evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination.
While upholding the finding of rash and negligent driving, the Court modified the quantum of compensation. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court held that consortium should be awarded only to the spouse and not to the children in the present case.
Consequently, the compensation was recalculated and reduced slightly from ₹44.91 lakh to ₹44 lakh, which the Court held to be just and reasonable.
The Court directed the insurance company to deposit ₹44 lakh with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks, after which the claimants would be entitled to withdraw the amount upon completing necessary formalities.
Case: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shrabani Bhattacharyya & Ors.
Case No: FMA 538 of 2024