MV Act | Delay In Lodging FIR Cannot Be Main Ground For Rejecting Claim For Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Dismissing an appeal filed by an insurance company against award of compensation in a road accident case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said the delay in lodging FIR cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. The company had argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the accident, as an afterthought to claim compensation.The bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao said, “Lodging of F.I.R. certainly proves the factum of the accident so that the victim can lodge a compensation case, but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of F.I.R. is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings if the claimant has demonstrated satisfactory and convincing reasons.”The tribunal had held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization date against both the rider and the Insurance Company.The counsel representing the Insurance Company contended that tribunal failed to consider hospital intimation received by the Police, wherein it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to a bike skid.“The Tribunal relied on F.I.R. and charge sheet stating that they are the evidence of gospel truth, and failed to note that the criminal case did not come to trial and settled before Lok Adalat for reasons best known to the claimant only,” argued the counsel.The court noted that the investigation was conducted based on the report filed before the police and a charge sheet was filed against the first respondent. "It is not the second respondent’s case that material facts relating to the accident are suppressed or fabricated because of the delay. If that is so, those facts would have come out in the investigation. After carefully reading the material placed before the Court, this Court views that the Tribunal has reached a correct conclusion on the contentions raised by the second respondent," it added. The court said that the Insurance Company failed to place any evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet were incorrect.On the question of manner of accident, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Bheemla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation wherein it was held that, “It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied.”The court further explained that in a proceeding under the M.V. Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. "The document having some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence and the accident's mode and manner of happening. As such, it is by now well settled that even F.I.R. or Police Papers, when made part of a claim petition, can be looked into for giving a finding regarding the accident," it said.The court further pointed out that the offending vehicle’s rider is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident or non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The insurance company has not taken steps to prove its contention by summoning the offending vehicle's rider, it added.Case Title: The National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Komaravolu Srinivasa Bharadwaj and ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 15Petitioner Advocate- Sravan Kumar Mannava Respondent Advocate- B V AnjaneyuluClick Here To Read/Download Judgment

MV Act | Delay In Lodging FIR Cannot Be Main Ground For Rejecting Claim For Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

MV Act | Delay In Lodging FIR Cannot Be Main Ground For Rejecting Claim For Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers