An FIR vehicle-number discrepancy does not defeat liability when investigation identifies the offending vehicle.

The claim arose from a road accident on 13 December 2019 in which Saugata Tewary, riding a motorcycle, was allegedly struck from behind by a tractor and later died from his injuries.

The initial complaint named vehicle no. WB-34G-8130; during the police investigation, the vehicle identified as the offending vehicle was changed to WB-16AZ-7790

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and awarded Rs. 26,29,000 with interest at 6% per annum

The insurer appealed against the finding on liability and the quantum; the claimants appealed seeking enhancement

1. Whether the change in the vehicle number from the one initially named in the complaint to the vehicle identified during investigation made the claimants’ case doubtful as to the offending vehicle and negligence.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification, including in respect of future prospects and consortium.

The claim was pursued under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident.

The Court applied the principle that an initial complaint naming a vehicle does not, by itself, prevent the police from identifying the actual offending vehicle through investigation; the investigation must test the allegations and identify the persons and vehicle involved.

The Court also assessed whether the award was just and reasonable on the evidence, including the deceased’s contractual employment and the consortium component.

No precedent was expressly relied upon in the Court’s reasoning.

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge based on the change in vehicle number.

It noted that the complainant was not an eyewitness and that the investigating officer’s evidence explained how the police identified WB-16AZ-7790 as the vehicle involved.

The insurer disputed that vehicle’s involvement but did not examine its owner or driver; the Tribunal had considered the eyewitness and investigating officer evidence and given reasons for finding rash and negligent driving.

On quantum, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s use of 40% future prospects, noting evidence that the deceased was a contractual employee.

It also found that the consortium component warranted an increase of Rs. 44,000, but concluded that Rs. 26,50,000 was just and reasonable overall.

The claimants were held entitled to Rs. 26,50,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim until the date of the High Court’s order.

Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to deposit that amount and interest before the Registrar General within eight weeks of communication of the order; any amount already deposited was to be accounted for, and the claimants could withdraw the compensation after completing the required formalities.