A registration-number discrepancy does not defeat a claim when other evidence establishes the vehicle’s involvement.

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a two-wheeler accident on 24 April 2002.

He alleged that a vehicle insured with the appellant insurer struck his vehicle from behind.

The insurer disputed the insured vehicle’s involvement, relying on discrepancies in its registration number and in the rider’s father’s name.

The Tribunal found that vehicle No. TN-59-J-0891 was involved and awarded ₹61,169 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the Tribunal was correct in finding that vehicle No. TN-59-J-0891 was involved in the accident

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

A discrepancy in a vehicle’s registration number does not, by itself, defeat a claim where reliable evidence otherwise establishes the vehicle’s involvement; the question is determined by assessing the evidence cumulatively.

The Tribunal must determine involvement from the evidence before it, rather than solely from the outcome of criminal proceedings, although relevant materials from those proceedings—including a rider’s plea of guilt—may be considered alongside the other evidence.

No specific precedent is identified in the judgment.

The Court considered the injured claimant’s evidence, the documentary and criminal-case materials, and the rider’s plea of guilt.

It held that the registration-number discrepancy in the earliest statement and the inconsistent description of the rider’s father were inadvertent errors that did not outweigh the substantive evidence identifying the insured vehicle.

The claimant, as an injured third party, was not expected to know the rider’s personal particulars.

On the cumulative evidence, the Tribunal’s finding was supported and warranted no appellate interference.

It dismissed the appeal and directed the insurer to deposit the award amount with accrued interest and costs, if not already deposited; the claimant could withdraw the amount in accordance with law.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.