Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a first appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Morbi in MACP No.49/2010. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.5,02,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the legal heirs of deceased Nanjibhai Raiyabhai Dabhi, who died in a motor accident on 21.04.2009. The insurance company challenged the award solely on the ground that the FIR was lodged belatedly on 09.05.2009, i.e., 18 days after the accident, and that the delay was unexplained, thus the FIR should not be treated as gospel truth. The claimants, represented by Mr. N.R. Desai, argued that the delay was due to the family being busy with last rites and that the factum of accident was not in dispute. The High Court noted that the factum of accident, manner of occurrence, age and occupation of the deceased were not under challenge. The court observed that the police had sent a Yadi on the very same day (Exh.39), the panchnama of the place of accident was proved (Exh.40), the post-mortem report was proved (Exh.42), and an eye-witness, Hiteshkumar Shantilal Thoriya (PW-2, Exh.38), had testified to the accident. The court held that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient to disbelieve the claim when other evidence establishes the accident. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and award were confirmed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Delay in FIR - Sufficiency of Evidence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court considered whether delay in lodging FIR (18 days) alone can be a ground to disbelieve the claim. Held that when the factum of accident, manner of occurrence, age and occupation of deceased are not challenged, and other evidence such as panchnama, PM report, and eye-witness testimony are on record, the delay in FIR is not fatal. The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR is sufficient to disbelieve the claim of the claimants and to set aside the award of compensation in a motor accident claim petition.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Morbi in MACP No.49/2010 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay in lodging FIR is not fatal to a motor accident claim if the factum of accident and involvement of vehicle are proved by other evidence
- FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be used for corroboration
- Insurance company cannot avoid liability solely on ground of delayed FIR when other contemporaneous documents exist
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 1030
R/First Appeal No. 2094 of 2012
Mr. G.C. Mazmudar, Mr. H.G. Mazmudar for Appellant; Mr. N.R. Desai for Respondents
National Insurance Company Limited
Legal Heirs of Deceased Nanjibhai Raiyabhai Dabhi & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation arising from a fatal motor accident.
Remedy Sought
The appellant/insurance company sought to set aside the award of compensation on the ground of delay in lodging FIR.
Filing Reason
The insurance company challenged the award contending that the FIR was lodged belatedly (18 days after accident) without explanation, and therefore the claim should be disbelieved.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Morbi in MACP No.49/2010 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.5,02,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Issues
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR (18 days) is sufficient to disbelieve the claim of the claimants and to set aside the award of compensation.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/Insurance Company: The accident occurred on 21.04.2009 but FIR was lodged on 09.05.2009; delay unexplained, so FIR cannot be treated as gospel truth; Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition.
Respondents/Claimants: Delay in FIR is not fatal; family was busy with last rites; factum of accident is not disputed; other evidence including panchnama, PM report, and eye-witness testimony prove the accident.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient to disbelieve the claim of the claimants when the factum of accident, manner of occurrence, age and occupation of the deceased are not under challenge and other evidence such as panchnama, PM report, and eye-witness testimony are on record. The FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and delay in lodging it does not ipso facto discredit the claim.
Judgment Excerpts
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the factum of accident, manner of occurrence of accident, age and occupation of the deceased are not under challenge.
The appellant/insurance company has challenged the impugned judgment and award only on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR.
Mere delay in lodging the FIR would not suffice to disbelieve the case of the claimants.
Procedural History
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Morbi passed judgment and award on 02.04.2012 in MACP No.49/2010 partly allowing the claim petition. The National Insurance Company Limited filed First Appeal No. 2094 of 2012 before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the award solely on the ground of delay in lodging FIR. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 11.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
