Absence of FIR does not preclude a finding of negligence if corroborated by credible ocular evidence.

On June 5, 2010, the deceased (Akash Srivastava) was traveling in a Maruti Alto driven by Respondent No. 3 (Rohit Arora).

The vehicle collided with the rear of a truck near Hodal at approximately 1:00 a.m.

The claimants (parents of the deceased) alleged the accident occurred due to Rohit Arora’s rash driving while attempting to overtake another car at high speed.

No FIR was registered, though a DD entry was made.

An eyewitness (PW1) came forward months later after seeing a newspaper notice published by the father.

The Insurance Company challenged the MACT award dated December 14, 2017, arguing that the accident was not caused by the driver's negligence but by a detached spare tyre (stepney) from a truck hitting the car.

Whether the death of Akash Srivastava was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9CK-8275?

Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom?

Whether the absence of an FIR and contradictions in eyewitness testimony preclude a finding of negligence?

The court applied the principle of tortious liability requiring proof of negligence in motor accident claims.

It relied on Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which mandates that a driver must maintain a "sufficient distance" from the vehicle in front to avoid collisions.

The court cited *Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.* regarding the duty of a trailing vehicle to maintain a safe distance.

Furthermore, it applied precedents established in *Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand* and *DTC v. Harbans Kaur*, which hold that the absence of an FIR or a delay in witness testimony does not automatically invalidate a claim if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are otherwise established by credible evidence.

The Court rejected the driver’s version—that a falling stepney caused the crash—noting that the extensive structural damage to the car's left corner, shown in photographs (Ex.PW2/1), was inconsistent with such a claim and supported the eyewitness's account of a high-speed rear-end collision.

The Court found PW1 (the eyewitness) credible despite the delay in his appearance, noting the common reluctance of citizens to join police investigations.

Applying Regulation 23, the Court reasoned that since the Alto hit the truck from behind while attempting a dangerous overtake near a divider, the negligence of Respondent No. 3 was established.

The Court clarified that under the Motor Vehicles Act, a sensitized approach is required; the lack of a formal FIR does not negate a claim when DD entries and oral evidence sufficiently prove the accident’s circumstances.

It held that the appellant failed to provide a credible alternative explanation for the accident.

Consequently, the appeal by the Insurance Company was dismissed, upholding the compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/- with 9% interest per annum awarded to the parents of the deceased.

All pending applications were disposed of.