Madhya Pradesh High Court
Muskan S/O Jakir Multani (Minor) ... vs Abdul Sadik on 31 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 31 st OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 4813 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MUSKAN S/O JAKIR MULTANI (MINOR) THROUGH
LEGAL GUARDIAN FATHER JAKIR MULTANI R/O
CHANDAN NAGAR 4TH GALI INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI JAHANGIR M. POONEGAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ABDUL SADIK S/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
NARWAR KAKAD, SANWER ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RIZWAN KHAN S/O NOOR MOHAMMAD KHAN
OCCUPATION: VEHICLE OWNER R/O NARWAR
KAKAD SANWER, ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. TATA A.I.G GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
L I M I T E D INDRAPRASTH TOWER TIRTIYA
MANZIL M.G. ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(R. NO.3 BY SHRI MANOJ JAIN)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against award dated 12/09/2022
passed in MACC No.4120/2019 by XXII Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Indore (M.P.), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the
claim petition.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that learned
Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case on the ground of belated FIR
relating to the accident, which is not permissible in the claim cases. He has
relied upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs.
Badrinarayan and Others reported in 2011 ACJ 911 and Sohan Lal Passi
Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and Others reported in 1996 ACJ 1044. In the light of
above judgments, he has submitted that claim case cannot be dismissed on
technical ground, therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal and passing the
award for the amount as assessed by the Claims Tribunal.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 / Insurance
Company supporting the award submits that this is a case of false implication
and invited attention of this Court towards para 23 of the impugned award. He
further submits that delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained. Claims
Tribunal has not committed any illegality in dismissing the claim petition. He
prays for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merit substance.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due
care.
5. The alleged accident took place on 05/10/2019 at about 07:00 am. The
minor appellant Muskan was coming back to her home from School on foot, at
that time, she was dashed by motorcycle bearing registration number MP-VQ-
3621 driven rashly and negligently causing serious injuries in both legs of
injured. FIR (Ex.-P/2) was registered on 09/11/2019. From perusal of the FIR,
it is apparent that the FIR has reference of Rojnamcha Entry No.31 dated
09/11/2019 . From perusal of the contents of FIR, it is also clear that on the
date of accident i.e. on 05/10/2019 information about the accident was given to
concerned police station from Varma Hospital, Dhar that an injured has been
brought for treatment after getting injured in an motor vehicle accident. Thus, it
is apparent that information regarding the accident was given on the date of
accident.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company submits that
on the date of accident number of offending vehicle was not given. The
offending vehicle has been falsely implicated by way of after thought story.
Appeal is devoid of merit substance, therefore, it may be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire
record with due care.
8. The injured appellant Muskan (AW-1) has deposed before the Tribunal
that she was hit by motorcycle bearing registration number MP-09-VQ-3621
driven by its driver non-applicant rashly and negligently. The learned Claims
Tribunal has concluded in para 23 of the impugned award that after 35 days of
the accident vehicle number MP-09-VQ-3621 has been falsely implicated, but
the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant has not been rebutted by the
Insurance Company by adducing any evidence on the point.
9. Mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to discard the claim
case as held by the Apex Court in catena of judgment and one of the judgment
is Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan (Supra). Relevant para i.e. para No.20 and 21 are
reproduced herein below:
"2 0 . I t i s well-settled th a t delay i n lodging FIR
cannot b e a ground t o doubt th e claimant's case.
Knowing t h e In d ia n conditions a s t h e y a re , 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
th a n t o ru sh t o t h e Police Station. U n d er such
circumstances, t h e y a r e n o t exp ected t o 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 t o examine
the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so
the contents of th e F IR should a lso b e scrutinized
m o re carefully. I f cou rt f i n d s t h a t t h ere i s 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 t o initiate
investigation o f criminal offences. Lodging o f 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
t h e victim a re a b le t o regain a certain level of
tranquility o f mind a n d a re composed t o lodge it,
even i f , th ere i s delay, t h e sa m e deserves t o be
condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of
the FIR assumes much more significance than delay
in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
10. In the light of aforesaid as observed by Apex Court, the findings
given by the Claims Tribunal regarding the false implication of the offending
vehicle merely on the basis of delay in lodging the FIR is not sustainable and is
hereby set aside.
11. Learned Claims Tribunal has computed the amount to be awarded to
the claimant in para 55 of the impugned award, which reads as under:-
(a) Towards Permanent Disability - Rs.3,60,612/-
(b) Expenses towards treatment - Rs.91,085/-
(c) Expenses towards transportation,
special diet and miscellaneous expense - Rs.10,000/-
(d) Non-financial losses - Physical and
mental agony - Rs.20,000/-
(e) Loss of income to the parents of the
injured while hospitalization - Rs.15,000/-
Total Compensation - Rs.4,96,697/-
12. Since no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been advanced on
behalf of the Insurance Company, therefore, the findings about the amount of
the award in para 55 is impregnable. It is held that the appellant / claimant is
entitled for award amount of Rs.4,96,697/-, which will carry interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of claim case.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties shall bear
their own cost. Resultantly, appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated herein
above.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
