Credible eyewitness testimony and prompt police intimation can prove an accident despite no FIR or post-mortem.

On 5 November 2012, Navkirat Singh, aged about 16 years, was allegedly hit from behind by truck no. UK 06 CA 0331 while riding his bicycle home from school. He sustained injuries, remained in coma despite treatment at several hospitals, and died on 18 December 2012.

An intimation of the accident was submitted to Police Station Sitarganj on 8 November 2012, bearing an acknowledgment and naming Dilbagh Singh and Satnam Singh as eyewitnesses; however, no FIR, inquest report, or post-mortem examination was conducted.

The claimants filed a motor accident compensation petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khatima, held that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the truck, found the driver’s licence and vehicle documents valid, and awarded Rs.9,80,388 with 6% annual interest.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the accident was fabricated or unproved, particularly because an FIR was not registered and a subsequent police inquiry allegedly found that no accident had occurred.

The appeal was governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In adjudicating a motor accident claim, the Tribunal and appellate court must assess the evidence on record to determine whether the accident and the negligent conduct of the offending vehicle’s driver have been established. The Court treated a contemporaneous, acknowledged police intimation and credible eyewitness testimony as relevant corroborative evidence; the absence of a formal FIR, inquest, or post-mortem report was not regarded as conclusive proof that no accident occurred.

The Tribunal had assessed compensation by treating the deceased’s notional income as Rs.4,500 per month and relying on Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh.

The Court found that the acknowledged intimation submitted only three days after the accident corroborated the claimants’ account and specifically named Dilbagh Singh as an eyewitness.

Dilbagh Singh’s testimony gave a direct account of the truck striking Navkirat’s bicycle from behind and established the manner of the accident.

Although the insurer relied on the evidence of DW-1 concerning the later police inquiry and emphasized the absence of formal investigative documents, that evidence did not directly disprove the eyewitness account or establish that the accident had not occurred.

Since the eyewitness had been identified in the earliest police intimation and the insurer produced no cogent contrary evidence, the Tribunal’s finding of rash and negligent driving was supported by the record. The High Court therefore found no error warranting appellate interference.

The absence of an FIR, inquest report, or post-mortem report did not by itself invalidate the claim, particularly in light of the contemporaneous police intimation and reliable eyewitness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, the Tribunal’s award of Rs.9,80,388 with 6% annual interest was left undisturbed, and the Registry was directed to remit the statutory amount to the Tribunal and transmit the original record.