Credible eyewitness evidence can sustain a Section 166 claim despite the absence of an FIR.

The appeals challenged awards dated 19 October 2016 arising from a car accident on 12 November 2015, in which the claimants’ parents died after their car fell into the Bhagirathi River near Papargad.

The insurer disputed negligence and the maintainability of the claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally because there was no FIR.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹81,13,456 in MACP No. 06 of 2016 and ₹30,35,800 in MACP No. 05 of 2016.

The appeals were heard together; the Court considered the facts of Appeal From Order No. 662 of 2016 for brevity, while separately addressing the future-prospects calculation in the appeal concerning Smt. Kamleshwari Devi.

1. Whether the accident occurred because the car was driven rashly and negligently

2. Whether the claim petitions were maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act despite the absence of an FIR

3. Whether the Tribunal erred by allowing a 50% addition for future prospects in calculating compensation for Smt. Kamleshwari Devi

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a basis for a claim arising from death or injury caused by negligent use of a motor vehicle, while Section 173 provides for an appeal from a Claims Tribunal’s award.

Negligence may be established by credible eyewitness evidence; the absence of an FIR does not, by itself, defeat a claim where the evidence establishes how the accident occurred.

The Court also referred to the principle that a comprehensive/package motor policy covers liability for occupants of a car, as stated in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surendra Nath Loomba and the authorities discussed there.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, for a self-employed deceased person below 40 years, 40%—not 50%—is added to established income for future prospects.

The Tribunal’s negligence finding was supported by PW-2, an eyewitness who described the car overtaking, travelling ahead, and then falling into the gorge; the insurer produced no evidence to displace that account.

The Court therefore rejected the insurer’s objection that the claims were untenable without an FIR, holding that the eyewitness evidence supported the Tribunal’s finding under Section 166.

As to Smt. Kamleshwari Devi, the Tribunal had applied a 50% future-prospects increase, but the Court found that Pranay Sethi governed and limited the addition to 40%.

It recalculated compensation, including the stated conventional heads, at ₹28,52,080.

It allowed Appeal From Order No. 665 of 2016 only to the extent of reducing the compensation to ₹28,52,080, with interest at 7% per annum.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount, after deducting sums already paid, within 45 days of production of the certified order.