The Calcutta High Court has clarified key legal principles in motor accident claim proceedings by holding that a delay in filing a First Information Report does not automatically defeat a claim for compensation, and that an insurer cannot seek recovery of amounts paid under a motor policy unless it proves a breach of policy conditions. The Division Bench of the High Court was dealing with an appeal in a claim petition arising out of a fatal motor vehicle accident in which the claimants sought compensation for the death of their family member. The accident had occurred when the deceased was allegedly struck by a vehicle, and a motor accident claims tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. The insurance company appealed against the award, contending, among other grounds, that the FIR in the case was filed with an inordinate delay and therefore the claim ought to be dismissed. The insurer also sought recovery of the compensation amount paid to the claimants on the basis that the policy conditions had allegedly been violated.
The High Court, however, rejected the insurer’s contentions, holding that the existence of a delay in lodging the FIR is not, by itself, a ground to deny compensation in motor accident claims. The court observed that courts must look at the totality of circumstances in which delay occurred, and that simple delay, particularly where plausible reasons exist, does not automatically render the claim unsustainable. While emphasising the significance of prompt reporting of accidents, the court recognised that delayed FIRs are a common feature in many cases and that compensation proceedings are civil in nature, requiring proof of liability and quantum rather than strict penal consequences tied to timing of FIR alone. Accordingly, the High Court affirmed that delay in filing the FIR cannot be treated as fatal to the claim unless the delay materially affects the veracity of the claim or the insurer’s ability to defend itself.
Further, the High Court dealt with the insurer’s attempt to recover the compensation amount from the claimants on the basis that the insured had violated policy conditions. The Bench held that an insurer cannot seek recovery of amounts paid under a motor insurance policy unless it can demonstrate that there has been a breach of the policy terms which materially affected the risk. The court noted that mere allegations of non-compliance are insufficient, and that the insurer must lead evidence to prove that the policy conditions were indeed breached in a manner that would justify seeking indemnity or recovery from the insured or the claimants. In the absence of such proof, the insurer’s appeal for recovery could not succeed.
In its reasoning, the High Court observed that motor insurance policies are contracts of indemnity governed by statutory provisions, and that courts must be cautious in allowing insurers to escape liability or to seek reimbursement unless clear evidence of policy breach is shown. The Bench highlighted that the purpose of the statutory liability under motor vehicles law is to ensure compensation to victims and their dependents, and that technical defences based on delay in FIRs or unproven policy violations cannot be allowed to defeat substantive rights of compensation. The court reiterated that insurers, if aggrieved by alleged policy non-compliance, must prove the same and show how the breach materially affected the risk assumed at the time of issuance of the policy.
Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court upheld the award of compensation in favour of the claimants and dismissed the insurer’s appeal to deny the claim or to recover the amounts paid. The court’s ruling underscores that procedural delays in reporting accidents are to be evaluated on their own merits and do not ipso facto invalidate compensation claims, and that insurers bear the burden of establishing any policy breach on a robust evidentiary basis before seeking recovery. This judgment reinforces the protective purpose of motor accident claim law and the necessity for insurers to justify allegations of policy contravention with concrete proof rather than presumptive assertions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.