The High Court
Case Details
FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 225 Dinesh Sha sh Sharma FAO No.6548 of Date of decision 548 of 2023 (O & M) cision :-25.07.2025 Versus Vikas and s and others …..Appellant …..Respondents CORAM: AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI E NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, Advoca Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Ad for the appellant. dvocate for na, Advocate vocate Mr. Sandeep Kodan, Advocate urance Company. for respondent No.3-Insurance NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present appeal has been fi been filed by the injured-claimant against the st the Award dated 05.10.2023 pas 3 passed by the learned Motor Accident C dent Claims Tribunal, Karnal (herein hereinafter to be referred as ‘the learned Tri ed Tribunal’) whereby the Claim Pet m Petition No.5 dated 06.1.2022 filed by th by the appellant under Section 166 n 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter inafter to be referred as ‘the Act’), has has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case as se as pleaded by the appellant in the claim p laim petition are that on 12.11.2021 th 021 the appellant was going from Karnal on al on his Motor-cycle bearing Regist Registration No.HR-05-AU-1611 Make Hero e Hero Splendor, being driven by him y him at a moderate speed on due left hand si and side of the road keeping in view view the traffic and traffic rules etc. When a hen at about 10.30 p.m., he reached n ched near Chhoti Raipur, Village VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 2 Raipur Jatt ur Jattan, District Karnal, in the mea e meanwhile, the offending Alto K10 Car b Car bearing registration no.HR-05A 05AC-5819 (hereinafter to be referred as red as ‘the offending vehicle’), being being driven by respondent No.1 at a very h very high speed, rashly, carelessly a ssly and negligently, came from opposite si site side and straightway struck aga ck against his motorcycle while coming on ng on the wrong side of the road. road. Due to heavy impact, the appellant alongwith his motorcycle fell dow ell down on the road and received serious mu us multiple and grievous injuries o ries on his person i.e. multiple fractures o ures on his right leg above knee, rig ee, right hip, right hand fingers, chest and t and shoulders etc. Thereafter, the er, the appellant was taken to Amritdhara itdhara Hospital, Karnal by his young younger brother Manesh Sharma who was c was called by him telephonically, whe y, where his MLR was conducted by the doct e doctors on duty. He remained admi admitted as indoor patient since 12.11.2021 1.2021 to 10.12.2021 in Amritdhara Ho ara Hospital, Karnal, where three operations ations of right leg, right hip etc. were . were conducted. After a month, he was shif as shifted to Fortis Hospital, Mohali w hali where he remained admitted for 10 day 0 days and multiple operations were s were also conducted there. His treatment i ment is still continuing as outdoor pa oor patient from various doctors. The appell appellant averred that accident took p k place due to the sheer rash and neglige egligent driving of the offending vehi g vehicle by respondent No.1. An
Legal Reasoning
FIR No.727 No.727 dated 07.12.2021 (Ex.P-10) under sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC of IPC was lodged against responde spondent No.1 in Police Station aunda. Gharaunda It is further averred by the ap the appellant before the learned Tribunal th nal that he has spent Rs.20,00,000/ 0,000/- on his treatment and his treatment i ment is still going on as an outdoor p door patient. It was pleaded that VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 3 various op us operations were yet to be conduc conducted and approximately an amount of of Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000 00,000/- is likely to be spent on future trea e treatment. It was stated that at at at the time of accident, the appellant w llant was 30 years old and was wor s working as an executive in a private com te company and was earning Rs.20,40 s.20,400/- per month besides that he was ear as earning Rs.25,000/- from selling lling milk. However, due to the accident in ent in question, the appellant has b has been rendered permanently disabled an led and he is unable to live life lik life like a normal person in his routine life ne life. With these pleadings the claim claim petition was filed. The learned Tribunal dismisse ismissed the claim petition of the appellant s llant solely on the ground that the at the FIR (Ex.P-10) had been registered a tered after a delay of 25 days on 07.1 n 07.12.2021. The reasoning of the learned earned Tribunal in dismissing the cla the claim petition is contained in paras 21 an and 22 of the impugned Award, w , which read as follows: - “xxx xxx xxx 21.After hearing rival rival submissions of both the sides, this Tribunal fin l finds force in the contentions of respondent No.3. A .3. As per the petitioner, the alleged accident had ta d taken place on 12.11.2021. It is not a disputed fact fact that FIR Ex.P10 was got registered by the petitio titioner on 07.12.2021 i.e. after a gap of 25 days from th om the date of accident. Though the petition filed by the y the petitioner is totally silent about any reason for de or delay in reporting the matter to the police, however ever, as noted above, learned counsel for petitioner tr er tried to explain the delay by submitting that the petit petitioner Dinesh was declared unfit to make statement ent by the doctor of Amridhara Hospital till 07.12.2021 2021. No doubt, the opinion of VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 4 the doctor Ex.P9 sup supports the version of the petitioner, however, it r, it is worth noting here that PW4 Dr. Radha Ram Raman, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Amritdhara Hospital pital, Karnal categorically deposed in his cro cross-examination that the petitioner was conscio scious when he was medico- legally examined in the the hospital, he was suffering from hemorrhagic sho shock and he was able to communicate. He furth further deposed that petitioner has never been unconsc conscious during the treatment. It is pertinent to note ote here that it is the case of petitioner himself tha that after meeting with the alleged accident, he him himself had called his brother
Legal Reasoning
Shri Manesh Sharma ma on the spot by making a mobile phone call, w ll, who visited the place of accident within 10 min minutes and took him to the hospital. Petitioner er Dinesh Sharma further deposed that nobody ha y had gathered at the place of accident and the police olice also did not come in his presence. The driver of er of the offending vehicle had fled away alongwith h ith his car before his brother could reach the place place of accident. He further deposed that he had him d himself noted the registration number of the offending ding car and had informed the particulars of the offe offending car to his brother immediately when he he reached at the spot. He deposed that when he re he reached the hospital, he was unconscious, and he r he regained consciousness on the next day though he he took a plea that he was not in a position to make th ke the statement. The petitioner has also examined h d his brother Shri Manesh Sharma as PW6/A, wh , who tendered his affidavit on the lines of petition itsel itself. In his cross examination, he deposed that he is a is an Advocate by profession. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 5 He admitted that he he had not witnessed the accident, rather the sam e same was disclosed to him by his brother i.e. the petit petitioner after he had reached at the place of acciden ident. He further deposed that the registration numbe mber of the offending vehicle was told to him by the p the petitioner immediately after he reached. However, h er, he deposed that he did not report the matter to the o the police as he was busy in providing treatment to t to the petitioner to save his life, which was his his first priority. He further deposed that no one fro e from his family informed the police as everyone wa was busy in providing better treatment to the petition itioner. 22. In the opinion of n of this Tribunal, the reasons given by PW6/A Shri Shri Manesh Sharma for not reporting the matter to er to the police are not cogent and plausible. Though t gh the version of the petitioner being unfit to make the the statement to the police can be believed to some ex e extent, despite the fact that PW4 Dr. Radha Ra Raman has deposed that petitioner was fully conscious during fully the treatment, however, th r, the petitioner is admittedly real brother of PW6/A 6/A Shri Manesh Sharma, who was not under any inc y incapacity that he could not approach the police. ce. Admittedly, he is also an Advocate by profession ssion, therefore, it is hard to believe that Shri Manes anesh Sharma was not aware of of the requirements of law as well as his responsibility as a law lawyer to report a criminal offence to the po police immediately, most particularly in this cas s case, where his real brother had suffered a road sid d side accident due to rash and negligent driving of an f an offending vehicle. It is hard to believe that PW6/A 6/A had taken the accident so VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 6 casually that he did no d not bother to complain to the police. There is partic articularly no reason why the police would fail to to register a complaint, if information had been g en given by PW6/A. Moreover, it is not a case where P re PW6/A Shri Manesh Sharma was not aware about out any details of the alleged accident. He had pers personally visited the place of accident after receiving iving a mobile phone call from the petitioner and he he was also told about the registration number of r of the offending vehicle by petitioner ately immediately thereafter. Though the minute details of the the accident could have been narrated by the petition titioner later on after getting fit as per the medical advi advice, however, vital details of the accident i.e. time an e and place of accident as well as registration number mber of the offending vehicle were well within kn knowledge of PW6/A Shri Manesh Sharma, which hich must have been promptly informed by him to the the police so as to ensure that the offending driver did r did not go scot-free and also to rule out the possibi ssibility of allegations of false introduction of a vehic ehicle as an offending vehicle. Promptness in informi orming the police could have also helped the p police in initiating the investigations earlier, ier, which in turn would have been helpful to the ca e case of petitioner himself. It was also not a case whe where the petitioner was taken by PW6/A Shri Man Manesh Sharma to different hospitals outside Karn Karnal in between the period from 12.11.2021 to 07. 07.12.2021 that he was not in a position to inform th m the police, when as per the application/doctor's opi s opinion Ex.P9, the police had visited the hospital m l multiple times and as per PW6/A Shri Manesh Sh h Sharma himself, he remained VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 7 present in hospital at K at Karnal with the petitioner all the time. Thus, this un s unnatural conduct of PW6/A Shri Manesh Sharma b a by not reporting the matter to the police leads to a to an inference that the period of 25 days in lodging th g the FIR was consumed by the petitioner to arrange a ge a vehicle for its introduction as the offending ve vehicle in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 nd 2 with an intention to fleece compensation from ins insurance company. The FIR Ex. P10 seems to hav have been lodged after due deliberation and concoc ncoction. Unexplained delay in reporting the matter ter to the police renders the testimonies of petitio titioner Dinesh Sharma and PW6/A Shri Manesh Sh h Sharma totally unreliable. In the present case, the the petitioner has failed to establish not only the in he involvement of the offending vehicle but also that that the accident in question occurred due to the ras e rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. This his petition is a patent misuse of provisions of Motor V tor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is a social welfare legislat islation. xxx xxx xxx” Hence, the present appeal. It is submitted by learned lea counsel for the appellant/in llant/injured-claimant that the learne learned Tribunal was in patent error in dis in dismissing the claim petition only n only on the ground of delay in registration tration of the FIR as the learned Tribu Tribunal failed to appreciate that at the time e time of accident the appellant was n was not in a condition to get his statement r ment recorded. Learned counsel refer l refers to Medico Legal Report (Ex.P-12) 12) of the appellant in which it is cl it is clearly mentioned that in the accident in ent in question the appellant had su had suffered shoulder and chest VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 8 fracture be ure because of which he has been s been rendered 60% disabled. Furthermor ermore, in his cross-examination Dr. on Dr. Radha Raman (PW4) had admitted th tted the fact that “I have given the re he report regarding the unfit of the patient tient on 13.11.21, 20.11.21, 28.11.21 1.21 and then fitness of patient on 7.12.21 2.21. Му report regarding the fitn fitness is Ex. P-9". PW-4 has further adm er admitted in his cross examinatio ination that, "Patient was kept admitted a ed as per Ex. P-20 to our hos hospital. When the Pt was discharged rged, he was not recovered. We r e referred the patient due to uncontrolla trollable sepsis to higher centre. The The surgery of the patient were conducted cted for knee, and for hip as as mentioned in Ex. P-16". ……”,wh which had been totally ignored by ed by the learned Tribunal while dismissing issing the claim petition. It is further s rther submitted that the appellant remained a ined admitted in ICU and due to ue to his serious condition, as demonstrat nstrated above, he was unfit to make make his statement; and as soon as the appe e appellant was declared fit by the trea he treating doctor on 07.12.2021, he made hi ade his statement to the police on 07.1 on 07.12.2021 itself. Further, the appellant h llant has been rendered 60% disab disabled as evident from the Disability bility Certificate (Ex.P-6) issued by ed by PW6 Dr. Vinod Kamal showing th ing that the appellant will not be abl be able to do any work and earn his liveliho ivelihood and would be dependent up ent upon others for daily chores. Even furthe further, the police after conducting th ting thorough investigation in the FIR (Ex.P1 (Ex.P10) had submitted final report eport under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-11) i 11) in which it had been found that t that the accident in question was caused by ed by respondent No.1/driver of th of the offending vehicle. It is accordingly rdingly submitted that any delay in r y in registration of FIR was for valid reaso reasons; and the same does not cons t constitute reason to dismiss the VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 9 claim petit petition. In support, learned couns counsel for the appellant relies upon judg judgments of the Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court in Ravi Versus Badrinaray arayan and others, Civil Appeal N eal No.1926 of 2011, Date of decision 1 n 18.02.2021 (SC);and National In al Insurance Company Limited Versus Shi s Shish Pal alias Raj Gopal and An d Another 2022 (1) PLR 627.", in which it hich it was held that “the purpose of lo of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is es is primarily to intimate the police olice to initiate investigation in criminal of al offences. Lodging of FIR certainly tainly proves factum of accident so that the the victim is able to lodge a case for e for compensation but delay in doing so c so cannot be the main ground for r for rejecting the claim petition. In other w er words, although lodging of FIR FIR is vital in deciding motor accident cl nt claim cases, delay in lodging the the same should not be treated as fatal f al for such proceedings, if cla claimant has been able to demonstrat strate satisfactory and cogent reason asons for it.” On the other hand, Learned c rned counsel for the respondent- Insurance C rance Company refers to judgment of ent of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India ndia Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Velu an lu and another Law Finder Doc Id #268599 685999 to submit that in the said ca aid case also there was delay in registration tration of the FIR, which resulted in di d in dismissal of claim petition. Heard. Reliance of the learned co ed counsel for the respondent Insurance C rance Company on judgment in Velu elu’s case (supra) is misplaced as in fact, i fact, in the said judgment it has been s been held to the contrary; to the effect that t that mere delay in registration of on of the FIR cannot be a sole ground for nd for rejecting a claim. In the said c said case the claim petition was dismissed issed by the learned Tribunal on t on the ground, that FIR was VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 10 registered tered after delay of 34 days. Howe owever, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held held that: -“The matter was tak taken in appeal where the order/awar award of the Tribunal has been set a set aside by the High Court on the ground und that mere delay of FIR cannot b not be a ground of rejecting the claim of t of the respondent No.1. Merely ly because the FIR has been delayed, a d, a claim cannot be rejected.” Further support of the above v bove view can be drawn from the following wing judgments passed by this Co is Court in: -1. The Oriental Insurance nce Company Limited vs. Jitendra K dra Kumar and others, decided on 13.12.2 .12.2019 in FAO No.3325 of 20 2012; 2.Oriental Insurance Company L any Ltd. vs. Sarvesh Devi and othe others decided on 02.8.2022 in FAO No.45 o.4520 of 2013; 3. Sahun vs. Fak Fakruddin and others decided on 14.3.20 3.2018 in FAO No.219 of 2012; 4.N National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Neelam elam and others decided on 10.1.20 .1.2023 in FAO No.29 of 2023; 5.United I ed India Insurance Company Ltd Ltd. vs. Mander Singh and others deci decided on 30.8.2018 in FAO No.2 No.2695 of 2018; 6. New India Assurance ance Company Ltd. vs. Gulshan shan and others decided on 23.7.2024 024 in FAO No.364 of 2024; 7.Cho Cholamandalam MS General General I al Insurane Company Ltd. vs. D vs. Dharamveer and another decided o d on 03.10.2018 in FAO No.1 o.1382 of 2014; 8.Oriental Insurance nce Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Chandr andrika and others decided on 27.9.2019 019 in FAO No.1430 of 2017; 7; 9. National Insurance Company L ny Limited vs. Sonika Sethi and ot nd others decided on 07.7.2022 in FAO No O No.8114 of 2014; 10. IFFCO T O TOKIO General Insurance Company L any Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rani and othe others decided on 27.2.2023 in FAO No.38 o.3856 of 2016; 11. United India In ia Insurance Company Ltd. vs. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6548-2023 (O & M) 11 Jagvinder der Singh and others decided on 2 on 21.12.2022 in FAO No.4355 of 2015; 1 5; 12. Harmel Singh vs. Bhagwa agwan and others decided on 19.9.2024 024 in FAO No.4109 of 2005;13.Bh Bhano Devi and another vs. Kapil and and others decided on 19.11.202 .2024 by this Court in FAO No.1542 o 2 of 2012; and 14.Janabai wd/o wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & others vs. M vs. M/s ICICI Lombard Insurance ance Company Ltd. decided on 10.8.2022 022 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in rt in SLP (Civil) No.21077 of 2019. In view of the factual and lega legal position noted above, it is clear that that claim petition of the appella appellant could not have been dismissed issed merely on ground of delay delay in registration of FIR. Accordingl rdingly, the learned Tribunal was in p as in patent error in doing so. As such, the , the present case is remanded bac d back to the learned Tribunal concerned erned to re-assess and reconsider t sider the claim petition of the appellant in light of the above noted fac facts and legal position. The parties are es are directed to appear before efore the learned Tribunal on 8.2025. 25.08.2025 Copy of this order be sent e sent to the learned Tribunal through the gh the District & Sessions Judge, Ka Karnal by the Registry of this Court. How However, nothing stated here in abo in above shall be construed as an expression ession of opinion on the merits of the m f the matter.
Decision
Disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, if any, shall stand disposed of. , 2025 July 25, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.30 14.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document