Kunduru Venkat Red Vs. Kondapally Upender Reddy and Other - Court Judgment

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO C.M.A. No.3560 OF2003dated:19-7-2013 Kunduru Venkat Reddy....Appellant Kondapally Upender Reddy and others.... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondent No.3 : Sri Ravi Kanth : : ?.Cases referred:

2011. (4) SCC693HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3560 OF2003JUDGMENT

: The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Warangal (for short the Tribunal) made in M.V.O.P.No.594 of 2000 dismissing the claim petition.

2. Facts giving rise to institution of the claim are as under:

3. On 14.7.1999 at about 6.00 p.m. claimant while crossing the road at Regional Engineering College, Warangal, was hit by a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.AP36E9389 Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, claimant was injured grievously and undergone treatment in local hospital. After being treated he was discharged on 30.7.1999. Claimant reported the incident to the police on 14.8.1999. Based on his complaint, police registered Crime No.101 of 1999 and on charge sheet was filed by the police.

4. Alleging that no compensation was paid to him on account of the injuries caused to him due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, the claimant instituted M.V.O.P. No.594 of 2000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act, 1988) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. The driver and owner of the vehicle were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 and New India Assurance Company Limited as respondent no.3. Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear. Third respondent opposed the claim disputing the happening of the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver and nature of the injuries caused to the claimant.

6. The Tribunal formulated following three issues for consideration: ".1). Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle?. 2). Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries and disability and is entitled to claim compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?. 3). To what relief?.

7. On the ground that there was no explanation forthcoming for not giving the complaint to the police immediately but filing such complaint 14 days after he was discharged from the hospital, and assuming that if really accident happened and injuries caused, the individual would have given complaint immediately, the Tribunal doubted the genuineness of the claim and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for appellant contends that Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on the ground that police complaint was not lodged immediately. He further contends that mere delay in filing the police complaint would not vitiate the institution of the claim under Section 166 of the 1988 Act, and there is no limitation in filing a complaint. Relying on Rule 476 (vii) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short the 1989 Rules) learned counsel submits that the claims Tribunal can pass award based on the copy of First Information Report but there is no requirement that First Information Report should be lodged immediately after occurrence of the accident. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of ".RAVI Vs, BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS".1 9. Section 166 of the 1988 Act reads as under: ".166. Application for compensation: (1)An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub- section (1) of section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or...... (2) Every application under sub- section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where any claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.".

10. Rule 476 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (the 1989 Rules) reads as under: ".(7) Basis to award the claim: The Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of :- (i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident; (ii) Insurance Certificate or policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk; (iii) Copy of the First Information Report; (iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer and (v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim.

11. Section 166 of the 1988 Act vests substantive right to institute claim petition in a person who suffers injuries involving a motor accident. It also vests power in the claims tribunal to treat report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under the Act. Once such application is filed it has to be adjudicated on merits and cannot be thrown out only on the ground that complaint of accident was not lodged immediately after the occurrence of accident or immediately after discharge from hospital. It is also relevant to notice that Section 166 of 1988 Act does not impose any time limit for filing an application for claim.

12. Chapter XI of the 1989 Rules deals with procedure to pass an award on claims under the 1988 Act for determination of the claim and compensation. According to sub Rule (7) of Rule 476 of the 1989 Rules, as extracted above, Claims Tribunal can award the claim on the basis of Copy of the First Information Report; and the nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim. Thus, an FIR can be the basis for the claims Tribunal to adjudicate a claim but the provision does not invalidate a claim merely because FIR is lodged after some delay. Rule 476(7) of the 1989 Rules does not seek to curtail a substantive right. Rule 476 comes into operation after claim is instituted and for adjudication of the claim.

13. On investigation police have filed charge sheet alleging rash and negligent driving of motor cycle which resulted in accident. May be appellant was not diligent in lodging complaint immediately on occurrence of accident or immediately on discharge from hospital, but delay of 14 days after discharge from the hospital can not be said as unreasonable to dislodge a claim at the threshold. In RAVI case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim for compensation under the 1988 Act was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that immediately complaint was not lodged. Dealing with the issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:

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. 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 tranquillity 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.

14. In the instant case, the claimant has filed copy of the First Information Report and medical reports as evidence of nature of treatment given to him pursuant to the accident occurred on 14.7.1999. The medical reports disclose that claimant sustained injuries and was hospitalised for considerable time. The fact that charge sheet is also filed by the police against owner of the vehicle shows that accident did occur. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that First Information Report was not lodged immediately after the discharge from the hospital but there was a delay of 14 days. Delay in filing of complaint with police regarding occurring of accident is not fatal to a claim for compensation under the 1988 Act. Hence, award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. It is made clear that this court has not expressed opinion on merits.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sequel to the same, the miscellaneous petition filed along with the appeal stands closed. No costs. _______________ P. NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:19-07-2013