An FIR against an unknown vehicle does not defeat a motor-accident claim when evidence establishes its involvement.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that the deceased was killed when a truck struck the motorcycle on which he was travelling.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹11,10,000 with interest at 8% per annum, holding the insurer and vehicle owner jointly and severally liable.

The insurer appealed, disputing the truck’s involvement, the finding of negligence, the deceased’s monthly income of ₹8,000, and the quantum of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the insured truck was involved in the accident and was driven rashly and negligently was sustainable despite the FIR initially naming an unknown vehicle and the truck being seized about a month later.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹8,000 and awarding ₹11,10,000 as principal compensation.

Whether the interest rate of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal should be reduced.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for compensation claims arising from motor vehicle accidents.

The Court reasoned that an FIR concerning an accident may name either a known or an unknown vehicle; where the vehicle is initially unknown, the police must identify and trace it and proceed according to law.

An investigation report cannot be discarded without examining the investigating officer, particularly where the insurer has not specifically denied the vehicle’s involvement.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court upheld the negligence finding because the insurer neither examined the investigating officer nor the vehicle owner, and its written statement did not specifically deny the truck’s involvement.

The testimony of P.W. 2 supported the claimants’ account, and the Tribunal had considered the oral and documentary evidence before finding the truck driver negligent.

The income assessment was also sustained because P.W. 3, the deceased’s employer, testified that he paid the deceased ₹250 per day and provided a daily tiffin allowance; the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹8,000 per month justified.

It nevertheless considered a reduction in the interest rate appropriate.

The Court affirmed the principal compensation of ₹11,10,000 but reduced interest from 8% to 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with interest calculated at 6% up to the date of judgment, within eight weeks of communication of the order, unless it had already deposited the award.

The claimants may withdraw the compensation after completing the necessary formalities; any excess deposit is to be returned to the insurer with accrued interest.

Any deficit court fee is to be paid within ten days.