IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 2107 of 2007 The National Insurance Co Ltd Divisional Office No.752, Mount Road, Chennai .. Appellant/ 2nd Respondent Versus 1. Mrs. Arivukannu 2. S. Bhaskar . Respondents/ Petitioner/ I Respondent Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 423 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Kancheepuram. For Appellant : Mr. S. Vadivel For Respondents : Mr. S.M. Loganathan for R1 JUDGMENT The insurance company has come forward with this appeal questioning the correctness of the compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant/first respondent herein for the injuries sustained by her in an alleged road accident that took place on 06.02.2002. 2. The facts which gave rise to the claim petition was that on 06.02.2002, at about 11.00 am, when the claimant was walking on the left side of the Kancheepuram to Cheyyar Road, near Indhira Theater, the driver of the autorickshaw bearing Registration No. TN-04-B-8456 drove the autorickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant from behind. In the impact, the claimant sustained fracture of right humarus, right hand and other bodily injuries. She was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Kancheepuram where she was admitted as an in-patient from 06.02.2002 to 15.02.2002. Subsequently, she had also taken treatment at a private hospital. At the time of accident, the claimant was 38 years old, employed as silk weaver and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, for the injuries sustained by her, she filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Before the court below, the claimant examined herself as PW1 and Dr. A. Vaithialingam as PW2. Ex.P1 to P7 were marked on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ side of the claimant. On behalf of the respondents in the claim petition, no witnesses were examined and no documents marked. The court below, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the very accident itself was disputed because, the alleged accident took place on 06.02.2002, the first information report was registered on 09.04.2002 i.e., nearly after two months and this delay was not properly explained by the claimant. Therefore, the very genuineness of the accident and the claim are suspicious and he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant would contend that the injuries sustained by the claimant/first respondent are serious in nature. Above all, the insurance company is estopped from contending that there was a delay in registering the first information report, at this stage, because, before the court below, the insurance company counsel had specifically put a suggestion in the cross-examination to PW1 that she sustained injury only when the auto capsized and not in the manner as stated in the claim petition. When such a question was put to PW1 admitting the accident on account of capsizing of the auto, it is not open to the insurance company to question the very genuineness of the accident in this appeal. The insurance company cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate in suspecting the very accident that took place on 06.02.2002. This was rightly pointed out by the court below and a meager amount of Rs.52,000/- was awarded as compensation and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard both sides. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the court below in favour of the claimant merely because there is a delay in registering the first information report. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the delay in registering the first information report will vitiate the claim made by the claimant and it goes to the root of the matter. The learned counsel for the appellant further contend that the accident took place on 06.02.2002 and the first information report, Ex.P1, was registered on 09.04.2002 after two months. The insurance company would contend that there is no plausible explanation offered by the claimant for the inordinate delay and the delay vitiates the claim petition. 8. When we analyse the evidence adduced before the court below, in the cross-examination made by the counsel for the insurance company, a specific question was put to PW1 stating that the accident took place only because of the capsizing of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ autorickshaw and not in the manner stated in the first information report or the claim petition. This would clearly indicate that the insurance company had admitted the accident but only would contend that the claimant had not sustained the injuries when the autorickshaw hit her while she was walking. When the factum of accident was admitted by the insurance company, it is no longer open to the insurance company, at this point of time, especially in the appellate stage, to contend that there was no accident took place in view of the delay in registering the first information report. It is also seen from the records that in order to disprove the claim made by the claimant, the insurance company has not produced any documentary evidence or examined any witnesses on their side. At the same time, the claimant would contend that a charge sheet was laid before the criminal court against the driver of the auto rickshaw, which was also marked as Ex.P3, before the court below, which would prove that there was an accident that took place on 06.07.2002 in which the claimant sustained injuries. When the evidence let in by the parties clearly prove the accident and the subsequent investigation that led to filing of the charge sheet against the auto driver, merely because there was a delay in registering the first information report, it cannot be a ground to deny the claimant the compensation for the injuries sustained by her. It is also evident form the records that the claimant had taken treatment for 19 days in the hospital and this was also one of the reasons assigned by her for the delay in giving the complaint. Therefore, I am of the view that the delay in registering the first information report itself will not entitle the insurance company to contend that the claim made by the claimant is ingenuine or bogus. Consequently, the only argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is rejected. 9. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below, it was not subjected to challenge by the claimant besides, the court below awarded a reasonable amount as compensation, which is in accordance with the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not advanced any argument as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below in favour of the claimant/first respondent. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. No costs. It is stated that the insurance company had deposited the entire award amount. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the claimant/first respondent is at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount with accrued interest. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. rsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Additional District Judge Fast Track Court-II Kancheepuram 2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to Mr.S. Vaidvel, Advocate, Sr. 4712 1 cc to Mr.S.M. Loganathan, Advocate, Sr. 5216 CMA No. 2107 of 2007 PVR (CO) kk 26/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/