In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that while a delay in filing an FIR cannot be the sole reason to reject motor accident claims, it becomes highly relevant when the evidence supporting the claim is weak or insufficient. The judgment came in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr. (SLP (C) No. 32138/2018), delivered on December 12, 2024, by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
The case involved Velu (Respondent No.1), who claimed compensation after allegedly sustaining injuries in a motor accident on 27th December 2011. According to Velu, the accident occurred when his two-wheeler collided with a lorry. He filed a claim for ₹20 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Chennai.
However, the Tribunal dismissed his claim, citing key inconsistencies in evidence. The discharge summaries from hospitals stated that the injuries were caused by a “skid and fall”, not a motor accident. Moreover, the FIR (No. 94/2012) was filed 34 days after the incident, on 30th January 2012, raising concerns over the validity of the claim.
On appeal, the Madras High Court reversed the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the delayed FIR alone could not be a ground to reject Velu’s claim. The High Court awarded ₹11.5 lakhs as compensation with interest at 7.5%.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The insurance company, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. Represented by Mr. Salil Paul and his team, the petitioner argued that there was no substantial evidence to prove a motor accident had occurred.
The Supreme Court analyzed the following aspects:
1. Delayed FIR: The Court emphasized that while a delay in filing an FIR does not automatically disqualify a claim, it becomes a critical factor when there is no corroborative evidence to support the accident.
2. Medical Evidence: Both discharge summaries from hospitals consistently recorded that the injuries were due to a skid and fall. This contradicted Velu’s claim of a collision.
3. Police Investigation: The police report, which included a closure report, concluded that there was no motor accident. The Court noted that this was a significant finding.
The Supreme Court observed:
“In a given case, a delayed FIR will not matter. Merely because the FIR has been delayed, a claim cannot be rejected. But when all available evidence points towards a skid and fall, and not a motor accident, the delayed FIR also requires relevance.”
Court’s Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the claim. The Court ruled in favor of the insurance company, finding that no credible evidence supported the claim of a motor accident.
The judgment highlights the need for courts to balance procedural delays with substantive evidence, ensuring that fraudulent or weak claims do not succeed.
Case Details:
– Case Name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr.
– Case Number: SLP (C) No. 32138/2018
– Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
