Can Delay in FIR Defeat a Motor Accident Compensation Claim? Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains the Law
Case Name: Gopal and Another v. Nepal Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 02 July 2026
Citation: FAO No. 2002 of 2016
Bench: Justice Harkesh Manuja
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere delay in lodging an FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject a genuine claim under the Motor Vehicles Act where the delay is satisfactorily explained by the injured’s prolonged medical treatment or other surrounding circumstances. The Court observed that motor accident claim proceedings are summary in nature and are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. It further held that an FIR need not necessarily be lodged by an eyewitness and that adverse inference may be drawn against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle where they fail to enter the witness box to rebut the claimant’s evidence. Setting aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Court awarded compensation of ₹17,76,000 with interest to the parents of the deceased.
Summary: Allowing an appeal against the dismissal of a claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly technical approach in discarding reliable evidence solely on account of delay in registration of the FIR and the alleged conduct of an eyewitness. The deceased had sustained fatal injuries in a road accident and remained under continuous medical treatment before succumbing to those injuries several days later. The FIR was lodged immediately after his death by his brother.
The Court observed that the family members of an accident victim cannot reasonably be expected to abandon medical treatment and rush to the police station. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan, the Court reiterated that delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal where it stands satisfactorily explained. The Court further held that an FIR merely sets the criminal law into motion and there is no legal requirement that it must be lodged only by a person having direct knowledge of the occurrence.
Rejecting the Tribunal’s finding that the eyewitness was a planted witness, the Court observed that human behaviour cannot be measured through any straightjacket formula. The witness had immediately informed the family members after learning that the injured had already been taken to the hospital, and such conduct was found to be perfectly natural. The Court also noted that the driver had been charge-sheeted in the criminal case, while neither the driver nor the owner stepped into the witness box to rebut the claimants’ evidence, thereby justifying an adverse inference against them.
Having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the Court reassessed compensation by fixing the monthly income of the deceased at ₹10,000, granting 40% towards future prospects, applying the multiplier of 16, deducting 50% towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor, and awarding compensation under the conventional heads along with medical expenses. The total compensation was assessed at ₹17,76,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, which would stand enhanced to 12% in case of failure to make payment within three months.
Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition was set aside. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of ₹17,76,000 with interest to the claimants, and the compensation was directed to be apportioned between the deceased’s mother and father in the ratio of 60:40.