REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1926    of 2011 [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.