Delayed FIR cannot defeat a motor accident claim when vehicle involvement is otherwise established.

On 10 August 2019, Narendra Singh Solanki was travelling on a motorcycle when Tractor No. MP-30-AB-2144, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Upendra Singh Sikarwar, collided with him. He sustained serious injuries, was treated at hospitals in Bhind, Delhi and Gwalior, and died during treatment on 12 August 2019.

The police initially recorded a merg intimation on 12 August 2019, followed by a Rojnamcha Sanha entry on 30 September 2019; the FIR was registered on 8 October 2019 after investigation.

The deceased’s wife and son filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting that he was a practising senior advocate earning approximately ₹40,000 per month and claiming ₹1,70,10,000 as compensation.

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹16,09,500 with interest at 6% per annum, assessing the deceased’s income at ₹15,000 per month and awarding ₹36,950 towards medical expenses and ₹44,000 each to the two claimants towards consortium.

1. Whether the claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay in registration of the FIR and alleged false implication of Tractor No. MP-30-AB-2144?

2. Whether the involvement of the tractor and rash and negligent driving by its driver were established on the evidence available before the Claims Tribunal?

3. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹15,000 instead of ₹40,000?

4. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation under the heads of consortium and medical expenses?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governing appeals against awards of Claims Tribunals.

It held, relying on Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (2020) 13 SCC 486, Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, that motor accident claims are determined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; strict rules of pleadings and evidence do not apply, and non-examination of a particular witness is not necessarily fatal.

Under Ravi v. Badrinarayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693, delay in lodging an FIR is not by itself sufficient to reject a claim, provided the evidence is scrutinised carefully and there is no indication of fabrication.

The Court also relied on Surendra Kumar Bhilawe v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 224, for the principle that delay caused by genuine or unavoidable circumstances should not defeat a legitimate claim.

Compensation must be just and based on proved or reasonably assessed income and established expenses; enhancement cannot be granted merely on unsubstantiated assertions.

The Court found that the accident and death had already been reported to the police through the merg intimation dated 12 August 2019 and the Rojnamcha Sanha entry dated 30 September 2019. Therefore, the delay in formal registration of the FIR was attributable to the police investigation rather than to any unexplained inaction by the claimants.

The FIR identified the tractor and its driver, the tractor was subsequently seized, and the involvement of the vehicle was supported by the testimony of Rajpal Singh Tomar and admissions by the owner and driver.

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer or one of the persons who supplied the vehicle’s registration number did not, in the circumstances, displace the documentary and oral evidence establishing involvement on a balance of probabilities.

The alleged collusion, based on the timing of seizure and filing of the charge-sheet or the admissions of the owner and driver, was not supported by cogent evidence.

On quantum, the Court held that the Bar Association certificate established only the deceased’s membership and did not prove actual income. No income-tax returns, fee receipts, accounts, State Bar Council certificate or other material established earnings of ₹40,000 per month.

The Tribunal’s notional assessment of ₹15,000 per month, having regard to the deceased’s profession and the date of accident, was therefore reasonable.

The consortium amount of ₹44,000 per claimant was maintained because the claimants failed to demonstrate an error warranting enhancement.

Medical expenses were also not enhanced because only ₹36,950 was supported by documentary evidence, while the alleged expenditure of ₹2,00,000 was not proved through admissible bills or other reliable material.

The Insurance Company’s appeal, M.A. No. 8030 of 2024, was dismissed. The claimants’ appeal for enhancement, M.A. No. 329 of 2025, was also dismissed because the income, consortium and medical-expense assessments were not shown to be erroneous.

The award dated 20 July 2024 granting ₹16,09,500 with 6% annual interest was affirmed.