FACTS:
Ravi, then aged 8 years, met a motor road accident when rear side of truck, 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 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur came to be dismissed by the 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.
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 got dismissed. It is under these circumstances, he has preferred the present appeal.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:
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?
REASONS FOR DELAY IN LODGING AN FIR?
- Ravi was seriously injured, thus it was more important for Suresh to get him treated first.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Suresh was not aware of the niceties of law that lodging of FIR was condition precedent before filing the Claim Petition.
HELD:
The Apex Court held that the Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court, committed grave error in not appreciating the mental agony through which Suresh was passing, whose son was severely injured.
On the question of how much amount can be awarded to the Appellant, the Court considered various facts. Record showed that victim was now aged about 16 years but was still pursuing his studies in class V only. Apparently, on account of nature of injuries sustained by him, he was unable to pursue his studies and lagged behind in the same. In the present case, the Court observed, the Appellant had suffered an injury of permanent nature as a result of which he is not 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.
In the most modest computation of the bench, looking into the nature of injuries which are permanent in nature, a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was awarded to the Appellant payable by Respondents jointly and severally. The aforesaid amount would also carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the same is actually paid.