An FIR’s missing vehicle number is not fatal where police investigation identifies the offending vehicle.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on 4 September 2012 a truck struck the deceased motorcyclist from behind, causing his death.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the truck driver rash and negligent and awarded Rs. 33,28,163.20 with interest at 8.25% per annum.

The insurer appealed, challenging the finding of negligence and the amount of compensation and interest.

1. Whether the omission of the offending vehicle’s registration number from the FIR, and the fact that an eyewitness was not cited as a charge-sheet witness, undermined the finding that the truck driver was rash and negligent.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation and award of interest warranted interference.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Court relied on Ranjeet and Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Nels and Anr., SLP(C) No. 10351 of 2019, for the principle that, once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, the absence of further eyewitness evidence is not necessarily fatal to proof of negligence.

The judgment states no separate statutory or precedential test for reassessing the interest rate.

The Court held that omission of the vehicle number from the FIR did not, by itself, make the claim doubtful: police investigation could identify the vehicle, and the insurer had not examined the Investigating Officer or the vehicle owner to challenge the investigation.

The Tribunal had assessed the eyewitness’s evidence and given cogent reasons for finding the driver of truck WB-41/7747 negligent; the Court therefore found no basis to disturb that finding.

It also found that the Tribunal had properly considered the income evidence and future prospects, so the principal compensation was upheld.

However, it considered the 8.25% interest rate excessive and reduced it to 6% per annum.

The insurer was directed to deposit Rs. 33,28,163 with interest at that rate within eight weeks of communication of the order, subject to credit for any amount already deposited.

The claimants were permitted to withdraw the compensation upon completing the necessary formalities, and any excess balance was to be returned to the insurer after withdrawal.