Karnataka High Court: In a set of two appeals filed separately by husband and wife under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (‘MV Act’) seeking modification in the judgment passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) by which their claim for compensation was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of, Chillakur Sumalatha, J., held that the failure on the part of hospital authorities to give intimation to police about road accident should not affect the chances of the claimants getting compensation in motor accident claims.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Tribunal to restore both the cases and decide the matters afresh on merits
Background
In February 2013, while the couple was proceeding on a motorcycle and while the husband was riding it, another motorcycle which was driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, hit their motorcycle, due to which they fell and sustained injuries. Consequently, they preferred claim petitions which were dismissed by the Tribunal stating a delay in filing complaints to the police.
The appellants contended that immediately after the accident, they were shifted to hospital for treatment as they were getting treated and were attending to one another; they could not concentrate on lodging complaints to police immediately. Per contra, the respondents argued that there was no intimation from hospital authorities regarding the alleged accident.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined the wound certificate and noted that it clearly did not mention ‘Road Traffic Accident’. Further, the Court held that the failure on the part of hospital authorities to give intimation to police should not affect the chances of the claimants getting compensated for motor accident claims.
The Court stated that one should remember that the law has not fixed any time limit for lodging a complaint to the police and whether delay in setting the law into motion is fatal or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court further stated that
“Courts have to look whether the de facto complainant has utilized the time to give wings to his imagination, to wreck vengeance against his opponents, for discussions and deliberations, to settle scores or to prepare grounds for false claim. In case none of these exist and where the delay is due to genuine cause coupled sometimes with inability to approach police immediately, then such delay cannot come in the way of victim to get justice”
Thus, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. Further, the Court directed the Tribunal to restore both the cases on file and to appreciate the evidence that was brought on record in the light of the findings given by this Court and decide the matters afresh on merits.
[Pandurang v. Durdundi Malagounda Patil, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 103215 of 2014 (MV), decided on 29-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Soubhagya Vakkund, Advocate and Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Suresh S. Gundi, Advocate