Failure To Intimate Police About Road Accident By Hospital Not A Bar To Victim’s Compensation: Karnataka High Court Allows Appeals, Directs Fresh Reconsideration Of Claims
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha set aside the Tribunal’s rejection of two motor accident claim petitions and directed their restoration for a fresh decision. The Court held that a hospital’s omission to notify the police about the accident cannot diminish the claimants’ entitlement to seek compensation when medical records indicate injuries consistent with a road traffic incident. The dispute arose from a collision between the claimants’ motorcycle and another vehicle, after which the Tribunal dismissed their petitions citing delayed reporting to the police. Stating that such delay is not, by itself, a barrier to maintaining a claim, the Court directed the Tribunal to reassess the evidence and determine the matters on merits.
The appeals arose from a common order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellants, a husband and wife, each filed separate claim petitions stating that they sustained injuries in a road accident that occurred on 17.02.2013. They were travelling on a motorcycle when another motorcycle, alleged to have been ridden rashly and negligently, collided with them, causing both to fall and suffer injuries. Both were treated at a hospital, and wound certificates were issued, marked as Exhibits P7 and P10.
A complaint regarding the accident was lodged with the police on 01.03.2013, after which a criminal case was registered and charge sheet filed against the rider of the alleged offending vehicle. The Tribunal dismissed both claim petitions on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that they were injured in a road traffic accident, referring in particular to the delay in filing the complaint.
The appellants contended that the delay occurred because they were undergoing treatment and attending to each other, and that the medical records indicated a road traffic accident. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ravi v. Badrinarayan, cited before the Court. The respondent insurer argued that neither the claimants nor the hospital had given timely intimation to the police.
The Court observed that a perusal of the medical documents “clearly goes to show a mention of ‘Road Traffic Accident (RTA)’,” noting that the failure of the hospital authorities to provide intimation “should not affect the chances of the claimants getting compensated.” It recorded that the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petitions “only on the ground that there is delay in giving complaint to police.”
The Court stated that the appellants’ counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and quoted paragraphs 20 to 23, including:
“Delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case.”
“They give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station.”
“Delay in lodging the F.I.R. thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.”
“Even if there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R., the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.”
“Lodging of F.I.R. certainly proves factum of accident… but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition.”
“Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind… even if there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned.”
The Court observed that “law has not fixed any time limit for lodging complaint to police” and that whether delay is fatal “depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” It further stated that courts must examine whether a complainant “has utilized the time to give wings to his imagination… or to prepare grounds for false claim,” and where none of those elements exist and delay is due to genuine cause, “then such delay cannot come in the way of victim to get justice.”
The Court recorded that given the evidence on record, including medical documents showing a road traffic accident, it was “unable to agree with the findings of the Tribunal that the claim petitions are not maintainable.” It concluded that the dismissal on the sole ground of delay was not justified.
The Court directed: “Both the appeals are allowed. The common order rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in MVC No.1710/2013 and MVC No.1798/2013 dated 10.09.2014 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to restore both the cases on file, to appreciate the evidence that is brought on record in the light of the findings given by this Court and decide the matters afresh on merits.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Smt. Soubhagya Vakkund, Advocate for Sri Y. Lakshmikanth Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Suresh S. Gundi, Advocate;
Case Title: Pandurang Shivane & Another v. Durdundi Malagouda Patil & Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: NC: 2025:KHC-D:14638
Case Number: MFA No. 103215 of 2014 c/w MFA No. 103214 of 2014
Bench: Justice Chillakur Sumalatha
