Charge Sheet Findings Prevail Over Initial FIR Discrepancies Regarding Offending Vehicle Identity In Compensation Claims.

The respondent/claimant, Eti Ray, sustained severe injuries on August 27, 2019, when a bus collided with the Toto she was traveling in at Midnapur

An FIR was lodged the next day naming vehicle WB-33A/6350, but the complainant later submitted a notarial affidavit changing the offending vehicle’s number to WB-33D/2950, asserting the initial number was an error

The insurance company (Appellant) contested the claim, alleging "fraudulent implantation" of the vehicle and a lack of route permit

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 15,31,087 with 9% interest

The Appellant challenged this award on grounds of identity of the vehicle and excessive quantum

1. Whether the offending vehicle (WB-33D/2950) was fraudulently implanted to claim compensation

2. Whether the lack of a displayed route permit constituted a violation of policy conditions absolving the insurer of liability

3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, including the calculation of future prospects and interest, was excessive

The court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding compensation for motor accidents

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] for the standardization of future prospects and non-pecuniary damages

The court also applied evidentiary principles from Kusum Lata v. Satbir [(2011) 3 SCC 646], which establishes that the absence of a vehicle number in an FIR is not fatal to a claim if identity is established during investigation

Furthermore, the court emphasized that in beneficial legislation, the burden is on the insurer to prove "fraud" or "implantation" through independent investigation or examination of Investigating Officers (I.O.)

The Court rejected the appellant’s plea of implantation, noting that while the FIR initially cited a different number, it correctly identified the bus name ("Abhinandan") and its specific route

The subsequent correction via affidavit was validated by the police investigation and the charge sheet, which the insurer failed to rebut by calling the I.O. as a witness

The Court observed that the insurer conducted no independent investigation to prove fraud and failed to specifically plead "implantation" in its written statement

Regarding the route permit, the Court held that since the insurer did not adduce evidence or examine the owner, it could not claim a policy violation at the appellate stage

However, the Court identified an arithmetical error in the Tribunal’s calculation, where the sum of individual heads (Rs. 13,51,087) did not match the final awarded figure (Rs. 15,31,087)

It held that the original award was mathematically inconsistent and excessive. The Court reduced the total compensation to a "just and reasonable" sum of Rs. 13,00,000.

The interest rate was also reduced from 9% to 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim. The Appellant was directed to deposit the modified amount with the Registrar General within eight weeks