Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors

[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11974 of 2008]

Ravi .............Appellant

Versus

Badrinarayan & Ors. .............Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Cruel hands of destiny played havoc with the life of Ravi, then aged 8 years, on

account of motor road accident, on 7.10.2001 at about 8.30 AM, when rear side of

truck bearing Registration No. RJP - 1008, driven by Respondent No. 1 -

Badrinarayan, owned by Respondent No. 2 - Prahlad Singh and insured with

Respondent No. 3 - M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, hit the victim,

causing multiple injuries to him. To add to his miseries, his claim petition filed under

Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred to

as 'M.V. Act') before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, `MACT'),

registered as Claim Petition No. 865 of 2004, came to be dismissed on 19.9.2007 by

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 2 -

- 2 -

learned Presiding Judge of the said Tribunal, mainly on the ground that formal FIR of

the incident was lodged belatedly and Appellant failed to establish that on the fateful

day, the said truck was involved in a motor road accident causing injuries to him.

3. An appeal filed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature

for Rajasthan, Jaipur under Section 173 of the M.V. Act also came to be dismissed on

29.10.2007. Thus, all hopes of, at least, getting some amount of compensation to

mitigate the miseries of the victim so as to lead a respectful and decent life had come

to a grinding halt. It is under these circumstances, he has preferred the present appeal.

4. The question which arises for our consideration in this Appeal is as to whether

delay in lodging the FIR of the accident could prove fatal so as to result into dismissal

of the Claim Petition filed by the claimant?

5. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under:-

On 7.10.2001, at about 8.30 AM, Ravi was attending to his call of nature, just in

front of his house. There appears to be a 20' wide kutcha road in front of the said

house. At that time, Respondent No. 1, Badrinarayan, was reversing truck bearing

Registration No. RJP - 1008. Since there was no conductor, probably, he was not able

to notice that Ravi was sitting on the side of the road, thus while reversing the vehicle

rashly and negligently, it hit him from behind. The said accident was witnessed by AW

1 - Suresh Kumar, father of the victim and AW 2, Hari Narayan. Soon after the

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 3 -

- 3 -

accident, both of them took Ravi to the hospital for treatment. Thus, they were not in

a position to lodge the FIR immediately. Even though police had come to the hospital

to record FIR but it could not be recorded on account of mental agony and stress

through which AW 1 - Suresh Kumar was passing. Obviously at that point of time, he

was more concerned to get the medical treatment for his son rather than lodging FIR.

Being a common man, oblivious of the niceties of law, he did not deem it necessary to

lodge the FIR immediately. Statements of Hari Narayan, Suresh Kumar, Asif Khan

and Ravi were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. On notice being issued under

Section 133 of the M.V. Act, the owner of the vehicle submitted the following reply :

"It is submitted that as per the registration I am owner of

truck no. RJP- 1008. On 7.10.2001 and at the time of the accident,

my truck was being driven by the driver Badri Narayan S/o sh.

Ram Nath Cast, Brahmin, Age 45 years R/o Purana Ghat,

opposite Khaniya Dayal Hospital, Police Station - Transport

Nagar, Jaipur. I was informed about the said accident on phone on

the very same day.

Sd/- (Prahlad Singh)

Dated: 16.3.2002."

6. This admission of Prahlad Singh, owner of the vehicle, amply proves that he

was aware of the accident and knew that his truck bearing Registration No. RJP - 1008

had met with accident on 7.10.01. Even though the aforesaid statement of Respondent

No. 2, Prahlad Singh, was recorded on 16.3.2002, but in this statement he has

categorically admitted that he was informed about the said accident on phone on the

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

-

- 4 -

4 -

very same day, i.e., on 7.10.01. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant point of time

the said truck was being driven by Respondent No. 1, Badrinarayan, a fact also

admitted by the owner of the truck.

7. Father of the victim, Suresh Kumar, lodged formal FIR under Section 154 of

the CrPC on 26.1.2002, almost after 3 months from the date of the accident, giving

details of the said accident.

8. Thereafter, as mentioned hereinabove, the Appellant, being minor, filed a claim

petition through his father, before MACT claiming Rs. 11 lakhs to be awarded to him

as compensation.

9. On notices being issued, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, driver and owner of the

truck respectively, remained absent, despite due service. Thus, they were proceeded ex-

parte. Written statement was filed only by Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company.

But the Respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the

Appellant. Even the driver of the truck did not enter the Witness Box to deny the

factum of the accident.

10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we have to examine whether the said truck

was involved in the accident and if so, to what extent victim Ravi could be

compensated.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 5 -

- 5 -

11. For the accident that had taken place on 7.10.2001 at 8.30 AM, formal FIR was

lodged by Appellant's father with Police Station, T.P. Nagar, Jaipur on 26.1.2002 at

12.15 PM. Critical perusal thereof shows that Appellant's father had given the exact

and vivid description of the accident and the injuries sustained by his son Ravi in the

said accident. He has further disclosed therein that since 7.10.2001, his son Ravi was

time and again admitted in the Hospital and was undergoing treatment, he could not

lodge the FIR immediately.

12. He further mentioned that police had come to the Hospital next day to record

the FIR and complete other formalities, but everyone present there suggested

that since Respondent no.1 was the neighbour of the Appellant, it was not desirable to

lodge an FIR and instead the matter of compensation could be sorted out in an

amicable manner amongst themselves. In view of this, FIR was not lodged

immediately or soon after the accident. Secondly, Ravi was still in Hospital undergoing

treatment, attending to which was more important for him than lodging the FIR.

Hence, there was delay in lodging the FIR.

13. It has already been mentioned hereinabove that in response to the notice issued

under Section 133 of M.V. Act, Respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle, Prahlad

Singh categorically admitted that his vehicle had met with an accident on 7.10.2001 and

he was intimated about the same on phone the very same day. Thus, on this admission,

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 6 -

- 6 -

it is clearly made out that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident, causing

physical injuries to Ravi.

14. On 7.10.2001, Ravi was admitted in the hospital, his injury report form was also

filled up by the attending doctors, which bears the signature of Ravi's father Suresh. It

is clearly mentioned therein that the cause of injury was road transport accident at

about 9.00 a.m. on 7.10.2001, near his house. Suresh, father of the victim, further

declared that at that time he did not want any medical examination relating to police

case regarding the injuries caused to his son.

15. When the formal FIR was registered by Suresh on 26.1.2002, a charge-sheet

dated 21.03.2002 against Badrinarayan was prepared for commission of offences under

Section 279 and 338 of the IPC and it was requested that legal action against accused

Badrinarayan be taken. This report was prepared by SHO of the concerned Police

Station.

16. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is amply proved that the

aforesaid truck was involved in the road accident, which had caused injuries to Ravi.

No doubt, it is true that there has been delay in lodging the FIR but the same has

already been explained by Suresh. The explanation offered by him is not only

satisfactory; it inspires confidence as cogent and valid reasons have been assigned

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 7 -

- 7 -

therein. Not only this, a consistent stand has been taken by Suresh right from the

beginning till the lodging of the F.I.R.

17. The reasons for delay are as under :-

i) Ravi was seriously injured, thus it was more important for Suresh to get him

treated first.

ii) Police had arrived at the hospital, where injury report was prepared in

which it was mentioned that injuries were caused on account of road

accident at 9.00 a.m. on 7.10.2001.

iii) The categorical admission made by Prahlad Singh, owner of the truck, that

vehicle in question was involved in the accident on 7.10.2001, when the

same was being driven by Badrinarayan and this information was conveyed

to him on phone the very same day.

iv) FIR could not be lodged immediately as other persons in the locality

pressurised Suresh that it could be sorted out amicably since Badrinarayan,

the driver of the vehicle, was his neighbour.

v) Suresh was not aware of the niceties of law that lodging of FIR was

condition precedent before filing the Claim Petition.

All these facts find place in the formal FIR which was registered on

26.01.2002 at the instance of Suresh.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 8 -

- 8 -

18. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid events clearly established that accident

had taken place on 7.10.2001 at about 8.30 in the morning on account of rash and

negligent reversing of the truck by driver Badrinarayan, owned by Respondent No. 2,

Prahlad Singh. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that delay in lodging the

FIR could have proved fatal to the claim case filed by Ravi.

19. Narration of the aforesaid events would show the bona fides of Suresh. As

mentioned hereinabove, a consistent stand has been taken right from the beginning till

the lodging of the FIR. The chronological events narrated hereinabove inspire

confidence and it does not smack of a concocted case which has been filed against the

driver and the owner of the vehicle only with an intention to get compensation.

20. 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

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 9 -

- 9 -

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.

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.

22. In the case in hand, the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed

grave error in not appeciating the mental agony through which Suresh was passing,

whose son was severely injured.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

-

- 10 -

10 -

23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that

the MACT as well as High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion that

lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim petition.

24. Now, the question comes for consideration as to how much amount can be

awarded to the Appellant. Record shows that victim is now aged about 16 years but is

still prosecuting his studies in class V only. Apparently, on account of nature of injuries

sustained by him, he was unable to prosecute his studies in right earnest and lagged

behind in the same. Medical Board Certificate issued by Government R.D.B.P.

Jaipuria Hospital, Jaipur dated 17.12.2004 shows that he has suffered the following

injuries and was admitted as many as on four occasions in the hospital, intermittently :

"Diagnosis: Abdominal Injury with fractured Pelvis

stricture urethra with ruptured urethra couplet transacted urethra

(Case No. 020762) IInd Adm. 10.11.2001 to 12.11.2001, IIIrd Adm.

27.11.01 to 12.12.01; IVth Adm. 28.12.01 to 1.1.2002."

25. It is to be noted that in a case where injury sustained by victim is of permanent

nature, he suffers much more than the person who succumbs to the injury. In such

cases, the injured has to carry on the burden of permanent disability throughout

his life, which is certainly much more painful to the victim. In the present case, the

Appellant had suffered an injury of permanent nature as a result of which he is not

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 11 -

- 11 -

able to control his urine. He has to suffer with it throughout his life; thus the

compensation should not only be adequate but proper also.

26. On account of aforesaid injury, his permanent physical disability has been

assessed at 50%. This report of the experts further shows that he is unable to control

urine and suffers from continence disability which could not be cured even after

surgical operation and frequent dilatation still takes place.

27. He has also been accordingly issued a permanent disability certificate by the said

Medical Board. Therefore, the said certificate clearly establishes that Appellant had

sustained permanent disability to his own body to the extent of 50% and even after

several surgeries; he was not able to control his urination. We can well appreciate and

imagine the problems and difficulties of a young boy aged 16 years, who is not able to

control his urination and spoils his clothes even while attending school. We have been

given to understand that he is required to go with additional sets of clothings so that

he could change the same, in case they are spoiled. This is the state of affairs even as

on date. We do not doubt the genuineness and correctness of the aforesaid certificate.

Even otherwise, Respondents have also not contended that this certificate is forged or

fabricated and has been obtained with an intention to get compensation.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.11974/08 .... (contd.)

- 12

- 12 -

-

28. Thus, looking into the matter from all angles, it is clearly established that in the

said accident, Appellant had suffered severe injuries of permanent nature which have

not been cured till date despite several surgeries. In our most modest computation,

looking into the nature of injuries which are permanent in nature, we are of the

opinion that a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000 (Rs. 2.5 Lakhs) to be awarded to the

Appellant payable by Respondents jointly and severally, would meet the ends of

justice. The aforesaid amount would also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of

filing of petition till the same is actually paid. As a result thereof, award of the Claims

Tribunal and judgment and order of the High Court; are hereby set aside and quashed,

instead the Appellant's claim petition is allowed as mentioned above with costs

throughout. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Counsel's fee quantified at Rs.

10,000/-.

.................................J.

[Dalveer Bhandari]

.................................J.

[Deepak Verma]

New Delhi

February 18, 2011.