Delayed FIR does not defeat a motor accident claim absent evidence of false implication.

Rajesh Netam sustained injuries in a road accident on 21 July 2019 and subsequently died during treatment on 5 August 2019.

The Claims Tribunal awarded the claimants compensation of ₹19,79,379 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 699/2022.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated because the FIR was lodged approximately 855 days after the accident, and that the deceased’s younger brother should not have been treated as a dependent; consequently, a deduction of one-third rather than one-fourth should have been applied.

The claimants opposed the appeal and sought enhancement, contending that the deceased’s monthly income should have been assessed at ₹8,400, being the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled labourer, and that the younger brother was a legal representative and member of the joint family.

The Court found that the Merg intimation, death intimation, inquest report and post-mortem report established the accident and the deceased’s subsequent death.

The Merg was registered on the date of death, and investigation culminated in a charge-sheet against the offending vehicle’s driver.

1. Whether the delayed registration of the FIR and the alleged subsequent implication of the offending vehicle justified exonerating the insurer from liability?

2. Whether the deceased’s younger brother, aged approximately 18 years and residing as a member of the joint family, could be considered a legal representative/dependent for determining the deduction towards personal expenses?

3. Whether the deceased’s monthly income ought to have been assessed at ₹8,400 instead of ₹7,800 on the basis of the applicable minimum wages?

4. Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal required modification under the principles governing future prospects, dependency and conventional heads of compensation?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In a motor accident claim, delay in lodging an FIR is not by itself sufficient to reject the claim or disbelieve the involvement of the offending vehicle where the surrounding documentary evidence, investigation and charge-sheet support the accident and liability.

For computation of loss of dependency, the Court applied Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, concerning deductions for personal and living expenses and the appropriate multiplier, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, concerning addition of future prospects and conventional compensation.

It also relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, relating to consortium payable to eligible claimants.

A member of the deceased’s joint family who is a legal representative, has no separate income and is not shown to be living separately may be considered in determining the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses.

The applicable statutory minimum wage may be adopted where the claimant’s pleaded income is unsupported by documentary evidence.

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge based on delayed registration of the FIR.

The Merg was registered on the date of death on the basis of information from the hospital, while the death intimation, Merg report, inquest and post-mortem report consistently established that the deceased had suffered injuries in a road accident and died during treatment.

The police investigation resulted in a charge-sheet against the driver, and the insurer produced no evidence demonstrating false implication; therefore, the delay did not displace the evidentiary chain supporting the offending vehicle’s involvement.

On dependency, the Court held that the deceased’s 18-year-old younger brother was a member of the joint family and one of the legal representatives.

Since there was no evidence that he lived separately or had an independent source of income, the Tribunal was justified in treating him as relevant for computation and applying a one-fourth deduction rather than one-third.

However, the Court accepted the claimants’ submission regarding income and substituted the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹7,800 per month with ₹8,400 per month, consistent with the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled labourer.

Applying 40% future prospects, a one-fourth deduction and multiplier 18, the Court calculated the loss of dependency at ₹19,05,120.

It further revised consortium to ₹1,60,000, loss of estate to ₹15,000 and funeral expenses to ₹15,000, while retaining medical expenses of ₹1,339.

It further held that the younger brother could be considered a legal representative/dependent for determining the deduction, and therefore the one-fourth deduction adopted by the Tribunal was proper.

The claimants were, however, entitled to enhancement based on the corrected monthly income and revised conventional heads.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹19,79,379 to ₹20,96,459, resulting in an additional amount of ₹1,17,080, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

The insurer’s appeal was disposed of, and the claimants’ cross-appeal was partly allowed; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were kept intact.