Bombay HC: Under which circumstances prosecution has failed to give explanation for delay in FIR?

 Further, Dr. Sanjay (PW 5) from Life Line Hospital, examined by the prosecution, nowhere states in his evidence that when the first informant was admitted in the hospital he was unconscious. On the contrary, his evidence states as under :-

"When the patient had been to the hospital he was in conscious condition."

Further, a contemporary document (Exh.45), the certificate at the time of admission of the present applicant at Life Line Hospital, clearly shows that, on examination, the doctor found him conscious, not only conscious, but well oriented. Further, there is nothing available on record that he was not conscious during the period when he was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, on the available medical papers and the evidence from the doctor, we will have to discard the evidence of the applicant/first informant that he could not lodge the report till 30.12.2000, for the reason that he was unconscious. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has completely failed to give explanation for recording of the first information report at belated stage.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

Shri Yatin Laxman Pabale Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Revision Application No.71 of 2002

16th January, 2015.

Citation: 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1299

Print Page

Bombay HC: What would effect if injured fails to disclose name of assailant to doctor who first treated him?

Importantly, when PW1 had the earliest opportunity to disclose the names to Dr. Manor Shet (PW4), who has first examined PW2, PW2 did not disclose the names of the accused to PW4 Dr. Shet. In fact, it has come on record that PW4 Dr. Shet made enquiry about the incident and the names of the assailants. Therefore, except the evidence of PW1, which is also vague and doubtful inasmuch as at the earliest opportunity, he did not disclose the name of Rakesh Modak, who, according to him, was driving the rickshaw from which the assailants came and assaulted him.

9. PW4 Dr. Sheth in his deposition had stated that he had enquired about the incident and the names of the assailants, however, he stated that nothing was disclosed to him.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2003

Decided On: 23.12.2021

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Hundraj Rupija and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Surendra P. Tavade, JJ.

Author: Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde, J.

Citation: 2022 All M R (Cri.) 3347,MANU/MH/4290/2021

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence if there is variance in the oral as well as MLC certificates?

 As per the evidence of PW1, he was unconscious soon after the incident and he was taken to MGM Hospital, Aurangabad, however, the discharge summary card of the injured-PW1 does not disclose history of unconsciousness of the injured PW1. Therefore, it appears that there is variance in the oral as well as MLC certificates.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2020 

Decided On: 02.03.2023

Sikandar Baig Amin Baig Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.

Author: Y.G. Khobragade, J.

Citation: 2023 All M R (Cri.) 1414, MANU/MH/1866/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court can accept explanation of injured that he could not lodge report as he was unconscious when medical evidence tells the contrary?

 Further, a contemporary document (Exh. 45), the certificate at the time of admission of the present applicant at Life Line Hospital, clearly shows that, on examination, the doctor found him conscious, not only conscious, but well oriented. Further, there is nothing available on record that he was not conscious during the period when he was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, on the available medical papers and the evidence from the doctor, we will have to discard the evidence of the applicant/first informant that he could not lodge the report till 30.12.2000, for the reason that he was unconscious. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has completely failed to give explanation for recording of the first information report at belated stage.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Revision Application No. 71 of 2002

Decided On: 16.01.2015

Yatin Laxman Pabale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2015 All M R (Cri.) 1299,MANU/MH/0747/2015

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence if report is not lodged in Police Chowki attached to Civil hospital where injured was admitted?

 It is further submitted that as per the injured-PW1 soon after incident he and his both sons were immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Beed where the Medical Officer PW7 examined and issued MLC certificates (Exhibit-103 to 105). It is routine that a Police Chowki is always situated at every Civil Hospital, however, the Medical Officer had not informed to the Police Chowki about admission of the injured due to assault. Though, as per MLC report the condition of PW1 was not so serious. Even if it is assumed that PW1 injured was shifted at MGM Hospital, Aurangabad but the physical condition of the PW2 and injured-Khamar Baig was not so serious. Therefore, either the injured PW2-Nayyar Baig or Khamar Baig could have visited the Police Chowki situated at Civil Hospital, Beed and could have lodged the report about the incident but no any report lodged for four days from the incident. The prosecution has not brought any explanation about not lodging the report with Police Chowki attached with Civil Hospital, Beed on the same day. Nonetheless, as per the evidence of PW9, the injured PW1-Sikandar Baig was hospitalised at MGM Hospital, Aurangabad and on 11.06.2014 he received MLC report of injured PW1-Sikandar at Exhibit-110. Thereafter, he issued a letter to the Medical Officer inquiring about fitness of injured to give his statement and on 13.06.2014 he recorded the statement of the injured PW1-Sikandar (Exhibit-86). On perusal of Exhibit-86 and the statement of injured PW1-Sikandar, the endorsement of the Medical Officer does not appear on it, who examined the injured PW1 to evaluate his condition of fitness to give his statement. There is no endorsement either at the beginning or at the end of statement (Exhibit-86). So also there is no seal or rubber stamp of the hospital to prove that at the time of recording statement Exhibit-86, the injured PW1-Sikandar was admitted in MGM Hospital and was fit to give his statement. As per the evidence of PW1, he was hospitalised in MGM Hospital, Aurangabad and the PW2 deposed that he and his brother Khamar Baig were admitted in Civil Hospital, Beed for three days, however, neither PW2-Nayyar Baig or the injured Khamar Baig gave any complaint nor asked their family members to lodge a report. It is not the case of the prosecution that the PW2 or injured-Khamar Baig was became unconscious and they were not able to move anywhere. The statement of injured PW2-Nayyar Baig was recorded on 15.06.2014 after four days of the incident and said delay has not been explained by the prosecution which certainly is fatal to the case of the prosecution. {Para 22}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2020 

Decided On: 02.03.2023

Sikandar Baig Amin Baig Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.

Author: Y.G. Khobragade, J.

Citation: 2023 All M R (Cri.) 1414, MANU/MH/1866/2023

Print Page

Supreme Court: Mere Delay In FIR Registration No Ground To Reject Motor Accident Claim; But Delay Can Become Relevant Depending On Evidence

We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the

parties at length and we do not think that the order of the High

Court is sustainable for the simple reason that there was not even

an iota of evidence before the Tribunal or before the High Court to

have shown that the injuries was sustained in a motor accident

except for the delayed FIR. In a given case a delayed FIR will not matter. Merely because the FIR has been delayed a claim cannot be rejected but in the present case considering that all the available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident, the delayed FIR also, require a relevance, particularly now we have been told that FIR itself has not been proceeded. Even the police in the FIR also came to the conclusion that there was no motor accident and had filed a closure report.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.  Vs VELU & ANR. 

 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

Dated : 12-12-2024

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Under which circumstances the motor accident claim tribunal should recall the order of grant of compensation?

 It is significant to note that the complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 19.1.2007 whereas the claim petition was filed by the minor claimant represented through his mother, natural guardian. The mother of the claimant was examined as PW-1. Complainant, father of the claimant has not stepped into the witness box. The claim petition first bears the signature of the father of the claimant and the same is erased, subsequently instituted through the mother of the claimant. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court on the issue on hand. In the case of United India Insurance co. ltd. v. Rajendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that fraud and justice cannot dwell together, it is unrealistic to expect the insurer to resist claim on the basis of fraud at earlier instance without knowledge about fraud. If order is not recalled even after noticing fraud, it leads to serious miscarriage of justice. The Insurance company when it comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation after the award has already been passed, no court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim.

{Para 8}

9. In Rajendra Singh v. Vinitha Yadav (supra), it is held that the claimants have not been able to explain the statements which were given by them before the Delhi police on the very day on which they received the injuries, wherein they said that the injuries were caused due to accident of the tractor on which they were travelling. However, the testimony of the claimants and their witnesses established that the accident took place with an ambassador car. In that context, it is held that the claim set up by the claimants was an absolutely false case and they were not entitled to any compensation. This was a case where the version of the claimants saw the light of the day for the first time, 32 days after the alleged accident when the FIR was lodged.

10. In the case of S.P. Changalavaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath reported in MANU/SC/0192/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 853, it is observed that "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. A Judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law is the settled proposition of law, such a judgment/decree can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

11. It is settled legal position that fraud and collusion vitiates even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beaslay observed at Queens Bench pages 712-713 All England Report page 345-C-D) "No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

M.F.A. No. 2162/2011 [MV]

Decided On: 24.10.2016

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shoukath and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Sujatha, J.

Citation: 2017 ACJ 1840 karnataka HC, MANU/KA/2671/2016.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Under which circumstances non examination of material witness is fatal to motor accident claim petition?

 In order to answer this point, it is axiomatic to refer to the factual matrix of the case as available on record. In this context, Ex. R1 plays a pivotal role. Ex. R1 is the register extract maintained by R.L. Jalappa hospital where the claimant was taken treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to the alleged accident. This Ex. R1 clearly establishes the history of injuries sustained by the claimant. Scanning through this document, it can be viewed that one Chand Pasha, the uncle of the claimant, accompanied him to the hospital on the fateful day i.e. 18.10.2006, the history of injuries as gathered from the uncle of the minor claimant/patient reveals that the patient along with his uncle was travelling in a goods auto rikshaw which toppled and the minor sustained injuries. LTM of minor boy was taken as the identification mark and the statements of the uncle of the minor were recorded with his signature. In other words, Ex. R1 bears the signature of Pasha. This crucial witness was not examined by the claimant to discern the truth. It would be inferred that the claimant is suppressing the material facts, particularly, when the specific defence was taken by the appellant/insurer as regards the claimant travelling as a gratuitous passenger. {Para 6}

7. It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred on 18.10.2006 and the complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 19.1.2007. It is trite law that no claim can be rejected merely on the ground of delay unless satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay caused in filing the complaint. As could be seen from Ex. P2, certified copy of complaint, it is stated that the complainant delayed filing of complaint due to the assurance given by the elders of the village to settle the dispute but the same is not substantiated by examining any witness on this aspect. Ex. R1 speaks that the claimant, minor boy was travelling in the goods auto accompanied with his uncle, whereas complaint Ex. P2 discloses that the minor boy was standing along with his father at the bus-stop. These inconsistencies are not satisfactorily explained by the claimants. It remains a jumble of facts, unresolved.

13. Considering the aforesaid principles of law and background of facts, it is manifestly clear that it is a case of dubious concoction having made with sinister object of extracting the claim as the claimant if found to be travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, was not entitled to compensation for breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The long time gap between the occurrence of the accident and the filing of the complaint would be the reason for ingeniously designing a device to make a claim for which the claimant was not legally entitled to.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

M.F.A. No. 2162/2011 [MV]

Decided On: 24.10.2016

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shoukath and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Sujatha, J.

Citation: 2017 ACJ 1840 karnataka HC, MANU/KA/2671/2016.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What will be effect of non examination of investigating officer by claimant in motor accident claim petition?

The claimants are also relying on statement

of   respondent   no.01   dated   10­07­2014   recorded   by

police.     The   said   statement   appears   to   be   part   of

charge­sheet   of   which   certified   copy   had   been

produced.     The   said   statement   has   been   taken   as

statement of the accused and therefore, for criminal

case,   it   may   not   be   admissible   in   evidence.     As

regards   civil   case   is   concerned,   no   doubt,   the

question   arises   as   to   whether   in   absence   of

examination   of   the   person   who   had   recorded   it,

whether it can be read in evidence, that too, without

deciding whether certified copy of such statement can

be   read   in   evidence.     It   appears   that   from   this

angle, submissions were not made before the Tribunal.

Even if for the sake of arguments, we take the said

statement   as   it   is,   in   which   it   was   stated   by

respondent   no.01,   that   due   to   the   dash   of   his

motorcycle   to   the   motorcycle   driven   by   deceased,

deceased   as   well   as   his   pillion   rider   fell   down;

statement   is   made   that   after   they   had   sustained

injuries,   he   immediately   asked   Ratnakar   and   Ganesh,

as to what is their name and then came to know about

their names and then he had called some other persons

and made arrangements for medical help.   That means,

he   intended  to   say  that  Ratnakar   as  well   as  Ganesh

were   conscious   when   he   made   enquiries   with   them.

This is contrary to what has been stated in the FIR.

In the FIR, it is stated that after they fell down

from the motorcycle after the dash, they had raised

hue and cry; however, motorcycle rider did not stop

and   fled   away.     Under   such   circumstance,   how   the

claimants can rely on his statement, is a question,

rather   it   gives   an   example   as   to   how   the   vehicle

belonging   to   respondent   no.02   has   been   involved   in

the case.   Ultimately, respondent no.01 says that he

will not be able to say how the accident took place

and   who   was   at   fault.     Therefore,   the   alleged

connection   between   the   medical   examination   of

respondent   no.01   and   the   accidental   injuries   caused

due   to   the   accident,   cannot   be   said   to   have   been

established   merely   by   producing   the   injury

certificate as well as statement of respondent no.01

taken by police.   The police head ­constable who had

taken   his   statement,   has   not   been   examined   by   the

claimants for the reasons best known to them. {Para 11}

12. The charge­sheet also contains statement of

respondent no.02 which is alleged to have been taken

on   07­-07­-2014,   who   has   echoed   thereafter   with

claimant   no.03   Ganesh   and   then   has   stated   that

respondent   no.01   had   carried   out   repairs   to   his

motorcycle   and   then   handed   it   over   to   respondent

no.02.   Again, at the cost of repetition, it can be

said that without examining the said police constable

who had recorded statement of respondent no.02, his

statement   cannot   be   considered.     This   is   with   the

fact,   that   in   their   written   statement,   respondents

no.01 and 02 have clearly denied involvement of the

motorcycle   bearing   no.   MH­17/AY­9996   in   the   said

accident. 

13. Again,   coming   to   the   point   regarding   delay

in lodging the FIR, it can be seen that the fact of

death   of   Ratnakar   was   informed   to   police   and

thereafter enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was conducted wherein the inquest

panchanama was carried out and then the dead body was

sent for post mortem.  Important point to be noted is

that when on that day i.e. on the day when inquest

panchanama  was prepared, there was an opportunity to

the  claimants  or  on  behalf   of  them,  FIR  could  have

been   lodged   against   unknown   vehicle.     Same   has   not

been  done.    Whatever   FIR  has   been  lodged   on  23­-04­-

2014,   is   also   against   unknown   person.     Therefore,

this   clear   delay   in   lodging   the   FIR   and   then   not

examining the police constable who had recorded the

statements   of   respondents   no.01   and   02   or   the

Investigation   Officer,   is   required   to   be   viewed

against the claimants.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

  AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.    

First Appeal No. 0186 of 2019     

Kavita Ratnakar Ghodke, Vs   Sandip Sarjerao Jadhav,

 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

  DATE  : 15TH JULY 2019.

Read full judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Bombay HC: What will be effect of delay in lodging of police report in motor accident claim petition?

 Again,   coming   to   the   point   regarding   delay

in lodging the FIR, it can be seen that the fact of

death   of   Ratnakar   was   informed   to   police   and

thereafter enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was conducted wherein the inquest

panchanama was carried out and then the dead body was

sent for post mortem.  Important point to be noted is

that when on that day i.e. on the day when inquest

panchanama  was prepared, there was an opportunity to

the  claimants  or  on  behalf   of  them,  FIR  could  have

been   lodged   against   unknown   vehicle.     Same   has   not

been  done.    Whatever   FIR  has   been  lodged   on  23­-04­-

2014,   is   also   against   unknown   person.     Therefore,

this   clear   delay   in   lodging   the   FIR   and   then   not

examining the police constable who had recorded the

statements   of   respondents   no.01   and   02   or   the

Investigation   Officer,   is   required   to   be   viewed

against the claimants.  {Para 13}

14. No   doubt,   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1988,   is   a

beneficial   legislation;   but   then   liberal

interpretations   and   benefit   can   be   given   when   the

accident   is   proved.     When   accident   itself   is   not

proved, though the burden was on the claimants; then

question   of   liberal   interpretation   does   not   arise.

The   point   no.   I   is,   therefore,   answered   in   the

negative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

  AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.    

First Appeal No. 0186 of 2019     

Kavita Ratnakar Ghodke, Vs   Sandip Sarjerao Jadhav,

 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

  DATE  : 15TH JULY 2019.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in motor accident claim petition when false case is put forth by claimant?

As regards the fact of accident is concerned, the initial burden is always on the claimant/ claimants to prove the same, which includes not only the involvement of the vehicle but also the manner in which the accident had taken place, as pleaded in the petition. All those authorities, which have been relied by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, have reiterated the basic principle as aforesaid i.e. the burden is on the claimants to prove the accident including the involvement of the vehicle/vehicles. In First Appeal No. 2742 of 2015 (supra) note has been taken of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 32 of 2013 decided on 11.07.2013 (Goa Bench), wherein it was held that mere production of police papers and exhibiting those documents does not dispense the proof of contents of those documents. It was also held that merely on the basis of certified copies of First Information Report, Spot Panchnama and other documents the claimants cannot prove their case. Therefore, it is now required to be seen, as to whether the evidence adduced in this case fulfills the criteria.

12. The First Information Report has been admittedly lodged belatedly. At this stage itself, note can be taken regarding the ratio in Ravi v/s. Badrinarayan and others reporting in MANU/SC/0133/2011 : (2011) 4 SCC 693 that delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be taken as a main ground for rejecting the claim petition. Here not only the point of delay has been canvassed but it is coupled with non-involvement and collusion. Therefore, facts and evidence is required to be scanned taking into consideration these aspects. Informant Balaji is the brother of deceased and in the First Information Report, which has been lodged after 25 days of accident (on 21.06.2011), number of Tata Magic has been given and then it is stated that when he came to know about the accident, he went to hospital, where Dhanaji was admitted. He had come to know that two persons from his village viz. Laxman Uttam Kamble and Mahesh Rangnath Deshmukh had admitted Dhanaji to hospital regarding details of accident. It appears that Dhanaji was unconscious on that day but on the next day i.e. on 28.05.2011 he expired at about 1.00 p.m.. It also appears from the contents of the First Information Report that the police were calling Balaji, since the date of post mortem and inquest panchnama, to lodge First Information Report but Balaji had not gone to Police Station. He has tried to explain that, since he was in grief and his mental condition was not proper, inspite of messages given he could not lodge the report. The claimants have not examined Balaji for the reasons best known to them. No doubt, he was not eye witness but then he could have thrown light as to why he had lodged the First Information Report belatedly and no other person could have lodged the report at any earlier point of time. Interesting point to be noted is that the inquest panchnama was executed on 28.05.2011 when Balaji was present. The inquest panchnama Exh.32 only makes a statement that motorcycle driven by Dhanaji was dashed by Tata Magic. Why First Information Report was not taken down at that point itself is a question. It will not be out of place to mention another interesting fact that claimants have examined CW 2 Dipak Lokhande, whose name is not appearing in inquest panchnama or in the spot panchnama or even in First Information Report, but then he say that he had seen the accident. So also, he says that the accident was witnessed by Laxman Kamble and Mahesh Deshmukh from his village. Now said Mahesh Deshmukh is, in fact, panch to the inquest panchnama. Therefore, if he was an eye witness to the incident, why he did not inform the said fact and ask the police to incorporate the vehicle number of Tata Magic in the inquest panchnama itself, is also a question. Conveniently the claimants have kept him out of witness box, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, mere mention of Tata Magic in inquest panchnama will not be sufficient to hold that it was the Tata Magic belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 on the date of the accident.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 606 of 2019 and Civil Application No. 3025 of 2019 in FA/606/2019

Decided On: 24.09.2019

Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vanita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2654/2019.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Motor accident claim tribunal should reject claim for compensation?

Significantly, no post-mortem was conducted. The High Court also noticed the fact that though the accident took place on 12 January 1995, a complaint was lodged only on 15 February 1995. As regards the evidence of the driver, the High Court noted that while at one stage he had stated that the deceased was brought dead, at another place he stated that he was referred to the government hospital for further treatment. The circumstance that no postmortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect of the case which in our view has justifiably weighed with the High Court. Moreover, the High Court found that if there were three passengers in the tractor, all of whom had known that driver Dharampal had by his negligent act run over Ram Kanwar, the most natural conduct would have been to lodge a complaint. The person who died was the brother of the owner of the tractor. Hence, the fact that a complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case. The High Court has also noticed that there were no hospital records to indicate, from the nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature alleged. The deceased was conducting a transport business with his brother and was an income tax Assessee. The fact that proper medical records were not available has, in this background, weighed with the High Court. Besides the above aspects, the High Court has found that the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is perverse.

4. On a careful analysis of the judgment of the High Court and the material on the record, we find no reason to take a view at variance with that of the High Court. The reasoning contained in the award of the Tribunal was perfunctory. The Tribunal failed to notice crucial aspects of the case which have a bearing on the question as to whether the death of Ram Kanwar was caused as a result of the accident caused by the tractor. Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set up to support a claim for compensation. The Appellants have not been able to displace the careful analysis of the evidence by the High Court and the findings which have been arrived at.

False case was set up  supporting compensation claim - No F.I.R. - No postmortem deceased brother of owner - F.I.R. delayed by 30 days (Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 3291-3292 of 2011

Decided On: 19.01.2018

Anil and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0022/2018,AIR 2018 SC 612.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances delay in Filing of FIR becomes relevant in Motor accident claim petition?

 We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for theparties at length and we do not think that the order of the High Court is sustainable for the simple reason that there was not even an iota of evidence before the Tribunal or before the High Court to have shown that the injuries was sustained in a motor accident except for the delayed FIR. In a given case a delayed FIR will not matter. Merely because the FIR has been delayed a claim cannot be rejected but in the present case considering that all the available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident, the delayed FIR also, require a relevance, particularly now we have been told that FIR itself has not been proceeded. Even the police in the FIR also came to the conclusion that there was no motor accident and had filed a closure report.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32138/2018

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs VELU & ANR.

CORAM :

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

Date : 12-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor accident claim tribunal should not refuse compensation to claimant only on the ground that there is delay in FIR

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. 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 scrutinized 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. {Para 20}

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.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2011.

Decided On: 18.02.2011

Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.

Author: Deepak Verma, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0133/2011,(2011) 4 SCC 693.

Print Page

Whether delay in sending FIR to magistrate is fatal to prosecution case if there is no prejudice to accused?

It has been consistently held by this Court through a catena of judicial decisions that although in terms of Section 157 Code of Criminal Procedure, the police officer concerned is required to forward a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence, promptly and without undue delay, it cannot be laid down as a Rule of universal application that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable and the trial stands vitiated. When there is positive evidence to the fact that the FIR was recorded without unreasonable delay and investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the Court, then in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, it cannot be concluded that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution story rendered unsupportable. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1482 of 2013

Decided On: 20.10.2016

 Yogesh Singh Vs.  Mahabeer Singh and Ors.

Print Page

When delay in filing of FIR is not fatal to prosecution case?

 Contention regarding delay in lodging FIR: The accused A-1 in collusion with other accused persons invited quotations on 12.12.1982 from the 12 firms for the supply of Damp Proof Cement (DPC) and DPC was procured during 1982 to mid 1985. Ext. P11 complaint was lodged by Dr. B.D. Sharma, Vice Chancellor, NEHU, Shillong, Meghalaya on 3.7.1985 based on which FIR was registered. On behalf of the Appellant/first accused it was contended that FIR was registered nearly after two years which creates serious doubts about its genuineness, more so, when the Vice Chancellor on whose complaint FIR was registered was not examined as a witness.

29. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the prosecution submitted that DPC was procured during 1982 to mid 1985 and the offence being a continuing offence and it cannot be said that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and non-examination of the complainant-Vice Chancellor was not fatal to the prosecution case.

30. Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-CBI, supply of DPC was continuously made from 1982 to mid 1985 and it was a continuing offence. In matters of continuing offence no duration of time can be fixed for lodging the complaint. First accused in collusion with other accused persons induced the Purchase Committee for purchase of DPC at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 42.75 per kg and only when the conspiracy came to the fore, the Vice-Chancellor lodged the complaint. In cases of abuse of powers and obtaining pecuniary advantage and causing wrongful loss, time of lodging complaint and registration of FIR cannot be considered on the touchstone of prompt lodging of complaint like other cases of murder, dacoity and assault etc., where there are possibilities of exaggeration and embellishments being crept in. In cases of abuse of position by the persons holding official position, and causing wrongful loss, prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and oral evidence of other official witnesses and hardly any possibility of concoction and introduction of coloured version. We find no merit in the contention that the delay in lodging FIR raises doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2056 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 553/2011) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 2057-58 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2203-2204/2011)

Decided On: 16.09.2014

 Edmund S. Lyngdoh Vs. State of Meghalaya

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.S. Thakur and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 15 SCC 572.

Print Page

When Delay in sending FIR to court is not fatal to prosecution case?

 FIR as well as the inquest report both mentioned
the accused Anjan Dasgupta.   The inquest report has
not   been   questioned   on   any   account.   The   offence,
having been committed at around 4­5 PM, registration
of the FIR at the police station between 7.30 to 8.00
PM   does   not   cause   any   reason   to   draw   any   adverse
inference,   more   so,   when   after   the   occurrence,   the
deceased was taken to the nearby nursing home where
he was declared dead and body remained there till the
inquest   was   over.   The   another   circumstance,   which
have   been   heavily   relied   by   trial   court   and
reiterated   before   us   by   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant is dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate
with delay.   This Court in  Pala Singh v. State of
Punjab   1972   (2)   SCC   640  has   held   that   delay   in
forwarding the FIR to court is not fatal in a case in
which   investigation   has   commenced   promptly   on   its
basis. 
20. The I.O. after receipt of the information of an
offence by R.T. message had arrived at the scene on
17.40   hours,   which   clearly   proves   the   prompt
commencement of the investigation. FIR was dispatched
on   22nd  June,   2000   which   has   also   been   accepted   by
trial court.   When no questions were put to I.O. in
his   cross­examination   regarding   the   delay   in
dispatch, at the time of hearing, the accused cannot
make capital of the said delay in forwarding the FIR.
This Court in Rabindra Mahto and Another v. State of
Jharkhand 2006 (10) SCC 432  has held that in every
case from the mere delay in sending the FIR to the
Magistrate, the Court would not conclude that the FIR
has been recorded much later in time than shown. It
is   only   extraordinary   and   unexplained   delay,   which
may   raise   doubts   regarding   the   authenticity   of   the
FIR. 
21. The present is the case, where recording of the
FIR   on   16th  June,   2000   itself   has   been   proved,
accepted by the trial court also, thus mere dispatch
of the FIR on 22nd June, 2000 from the police station
to the Magistrates' Court has no bearing on the basis
of which any adverse presumption can be drawn.  From
the above discussion, we are of the clear view that
the FIR was genuine FIR and trial court committed an
error   in   drawing   adverse   inference   against   the
prosecution and refusing to attach value to the FIR. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    CRIMIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2006
ANJAN DASGUPTA
     V
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Dated: NOVEMBER 25, 2016.
Citation: 2017 CRLJ 529 SC

Print Page

Whether prosecution is required to explain delay of every hour in sending FIR to Magistrate?

From bare perusal of the ratio decided in the above judgments, it would appear that there cannot be any manner of doubt that Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") requires sending of an FIR to the Magistrate forthwith which reaches promptly and without undue delay. The reason is obvious to avoid any possible improvement in the prosecution story and also to enable the Magistrate to have a watch on the progress of the investigation. It is not that as if every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-dated or ante-timed or investigation is not fair. Every such delay is not fatal unless prejudice to the accused is shown. The expression 'forthwith' as mentioned in Section 157 of the Code does not mean that prosecution is required to explain the delay of every hour in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. Undoubtedly, the unexplained inordinate delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate may affect the prosecution case adversely or an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution when there are circumstances from which an inference can be drawn that there was every chance of manipulation in the FIR by roping innocent person as accused. In the case Ramesh Babu Rao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/8026/2007 : (2007) 13 SCC 501: (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1606) wherein there had been a delay of four days in sending the copy of the FIR to the Uaqa Magistrate and no satisfactory explanation could be furnished for such inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon earlier judgments State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh MANU/SC/0085/2001 : (2001) 3 SCC 147 : (AIR 2001 SC 990) and Jagdish Murav v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/8439/2006 : (2006) 12 SCC 626 held that the unexplaned inordinate delay may adversely affect the prosecution case. However, it would depend upon the facts of each case. In the instant case also, from the endorsement made on the FIR, there appears to be a delay of 4 days in placing the FIR before the Magistrate, but this lacuna would not be the sole basis for throwing out the entire prosecution case being fabricated if the prosecution has produced reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 567, 719, 763, 764, 582 and 570 of 2005

Decided On: 03.02.2016

Nageshwar Mandal
Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Coram:Rakesh Ranjan Prasad and Ravi Nath Verma, JJ.

Citation: 2016 CRLJ 4283 JHAR

Print Page

When delay in lodging FIR in matrimonial offence is not fatal to case?

 On the basis of relevant facts the High Court appears to be
justified in holding that there is good explanation for the delay in
lodging the FIR on 22.11.1993 because PW-15 delayed the inquest
proceedings without valid reasons leading to delay in the postmortem
examination as well and only on knowledge of the injuries etc. the


mother of the deceased gathered strength to lodge the FIR. When the
deceased died leaving a son of ten months old the mother of the
deceased had many other things to worry for, including cremation of
the dead body and in such circumstances the High Court was justified
in criticizing the trial court for its hyper technical approach in
blaming the mother of the deceased for lodging a delayed complaint. It
will be useful to remember that delay in lodging the FIR or complaint
is not fatal in all cases. The Court must show some sensitivity in
cases of present nature where the victim’s closest relation - mother is
a poor helpless lady. Even a well to do person may suffer a state of
mental confusion when struck by such a tragedy. The prosecution in
such cases is likely to be delayed further if the deceased has left
behind children. The issues relating to their safety and custody often
require higher priority. Occurrences of the present nature require
lodging of criminal case against persons who are already in the
category of relation by virtue of matrimonial ties through the deceased
and it is not always easy to take a decision whether to lodge a
criminal case against a relation or not. Hence in such cases the
factum of delay has to be dealt with sympathetically keeping in mind
the mental condition of the close relations of the victim. The trial court
miserably failed on this count too.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1358 of 2008
Satish Shetty …..Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka …..Respondent
Dated:June 03, 2016.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Print Page