RAVI versus BADRINARAYAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 18-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 400 
RAVI 
v. 
BADRINARAYAN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND D~EPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss.140 and 166: 
C 
Motor accident - Compensatiof/ claim - Whether delay 
in lodging FIR of the accident can prove fatal so as to result 
into dismissal of the claim petition filed by the claimant -
Held: Although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor 
accident claim cases, delay in lodgfrig the same should not 
be treated as fatal for such proceeC/ings, if claimant is able 
D to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it - There 
could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed 
lodgment of FIR - In cases of delay, the courts are required 
to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing 
so; the contents of the FIR should ($/so be scrutinized more 
E carefully - If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication 
or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate 
innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the 
FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that 
ground - In the present case, it was amply proved that the 
F truck owned by respondent no.2 and driven by respondent 
no. 1 was involved in the road accident, which had caused 
injuries to the appellant - No doubt, there was delay in lodging 
the FIR but the same was explained by the appellant's father 
- The explanation offered by him was not only satisfactory; it 
G inspired confidence as cogent and valid reasons were 
assigned therein - Further, a consistent stand was taken by 
appellant's father right from the beginning till the lodging of 
the F. I. R. - Under the circumstance$, it cannot be said that 
delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the claim case filed by 
H 
400 
• 
• 
RAVI v. BADRINARAYAN AND ORS. 
401 
the appellant - FIR. 
Motor accident - Adequate and proper compensation -
Appellant, a minor boy aged 8 years, hit by a moving truck -
A 
He sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50% and 
even after several surgeries not able to control his urination 
B 
- Appellant now aged about 16 years but still prosecuting his 
studies in class V only - Held: Apparently, on account of 
nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, he was unable 
to prosecute his studies in right earnest and lagged behind 
in the same - In a case where injury sustained by victim is of c 
permanent nature, he suffers much more than the person who 
succumbs to the injury - In the present case, the appellant 
has to suffer throughout his life; thus the compensation should 
not only be adequate but proper also - Looking into the nature 
of injuries suffered by appellant which are permanent in nature, o 
and in the interest of justice, appellant granted compensation 
of Rs.2.5 lakhs, payable by the respondents, jointly and 
severally- Said amount to carry interest@ 6% p.a. from the 
date of filing of claim petition till the same is actually paid. 
Appellant, a minor boy aged 8 years, suffered 
grievous injuries after being allegedly hit by a truck driven 
by respondent no.1. The truck in question was owned by 
respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. The 
appellant's father lodged formal FIR almost 3 months after 
the date of the incident. The appellant filed claim petition 
(through his father) under ss.140 and 166 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988, which was dismissed, primarily on the 
ground that formal FIR of the incident was lodged 
belatedly and that the appellant failed to establish that on 
E 
F 
the fateful day, the said truck was involved in a motor 
G 
road accident causing injuries to him. The order was 
upheld by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal, the questions arising for 
consideration of the Court were: 1) whether delay in 
H 
• 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A lodging FIR of the accident pr,ved fatal so as to result 
into dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant 
and 2) whether the truck drive~ by respondent no.1 and 
owned by respondent no.2 wa~ involved in the accident 
and if so, to what extent the victim-appellant could be 
B compensated. 
Allowing the appeal, the Cpurt 
HELD:1.1. On the fateful day, the appellant was 
attending to his call of nature, just in front of his house 
C when respondent no.1 was rev~rsing a truck. Since there 
was no conductor, probably, respondent no.1 was not 
able to notice that the appellant was sitting on the side 
of the road, thus

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.