A police final report may establish vehicle involvement despite an FIR naming an unknown vehicle.

On 1 September 2017, K. Janova was riding pillion on a motorcycle when she fell and sustained fatal injuries.

Her husband, son and daughters claimed compensation, alleging that the motorcycle’s rider had applied the brakes rashly and negligently.

Although the FIR initially recorded the vehicle as unknown, the subsequent police final report identified the insured motorcycle and its rider.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 19,61,900, directing the insurer to pay and recover from the vehicle owner because the rider lacked a valid driving licence.

The insurer appealed, disputing the vehicle’s involvement and the quantum; the claimants cross-objected for enhancement.

1. Whether the claimants established that the insured motorcycle was involved in the accident despite the FIR initially referring to an unknown vehicle.

2. Whether the insurer’s liability to pay and recover from the owner was justified because the rider did not hold a valid driving licence.

3. Whether the compensation for loss of dependency required enhancement.

An FIR sets the criminal law in motion but is not conclusive proof or an exhaustive account of the incident; its initial contents do not preclude reliance on subsequent investigation evidence.

The Court applied Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Company, 2014 (1) TANMAC 459, in fixing notional income, and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for future prospects.

It applied Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, to select the multiplier based on the deceased’s age.

Where the rider lacked a valid driving licence, the insurer was required to pay the claimants first, with liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to vehicle involvement because the police final report identified the insured motorcycle and rider after investigation, the claimants’ police witnesses supported that conclusion, and the insurer produced no evidence to disprove it; the FIR’s initial reference to an unknown vehicle was not decisive.

The absence of a valid driving licence established a policy breach, supporting the Tribunal’s pay-and-recover direction.

For dependency, the Court treated the deceased as 43 years old, fixed notional monthly income at Rs. 15,000, added 25% for future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 14, calculating loss of dependency at Rs. 23,62,500.

It left the awards under the other heads undisturbed.

It confirmed the pay-and-recover direction and ordered the insurer to deposit the enhanced award with interest at 7.5% per annum from the claim petition date, together with costs, after crediting any amount already deposited; the Tribunal was directed to transfer the amount to the claimants in accordance with its apportionment.