The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company against the award of compensation in a road accident case. The insurance company had argued that the delay in lodging FIR (First Information Report) cannot be ignored, and it should be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. However, the court noted that the delay in lodging FIR cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the claim petition.
The bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao said,
“Lodging of F.I.R. certainly proves the factum of the accident so that the victim can lodge a compensation case, but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of F.I.R. is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings if the claimant has demonstrated satisfactory and convincing reasons.”
The tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization date against both the rider and the Insurance Company. The company had contended that the tribunal failed to consider hospital intimation received by the police, wherein it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to a bike skid.
The court, after carefully reading the material placed before it, observed that the tribunal has reached a correct conclusion on the contentions raised by the second respondent. The Insurance Company failed to place any evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet were incorrect.
On the question of manner of accident, the court referred to the Supreme Court case of Bheemla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, wherein it was held that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The court further explained that in a proceeding under the M.V. Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence.
The court further pointed out that the offending vehicle’s rider is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident or non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The insurance company has not taken steps to prove its contention by summoning the offending vehicle’s rider, it added.
In conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has rightly observed that the delay in lodging FIR cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the claim petition. It has also stressed the need for a preponderance of probabilities to establish the manner and mode of the accident. The offending vehicle’s rider should be summoned to provide the best possible information regarding the accident. Finally, the court has emphasized that a proceeding under the M.V. Act is a summary procedure, and strict rules of pleading or evidence need not be followed.
Case Title: The National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Komaravolu Srinivasa Bharadwaj and ors.
Petitioner Advocate- Sravan Kumar Mannava
Respondent Advocate- B V Anjaneyulu
displayphp-467212