Delayed FIR is not fatal to motor accident claims if corroborated by police investigation and charge-sheet.

On 13.08.2016, Saleem Khan (Respondent No. 1) was struck by an insured vehicle (HR-27C-5161) driven rashly by Respondent No. 2.

The claimant sustained a Diffuse Axonal Injury and a bimalleolar fracture, resulting in 90% profound physical disability and cognitive decline.

The FIR was lodged 12 days after the incident by the claimant's father.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 1,25,35,440/- with 7.5% interest.

The appellant Insurance Company challenged the award, alleging false implication of the vehicle due to the delayed FIR and discrepancies between the MLC (which mentioned a "bike") and the claim petition (which stated the claimant was "on foot").

1. Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident and if the driver was negligent, despite the delay in FIR and discrepancies in medical records.

2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads was excessive or required modification.

3. Whether interest should be waived for the period the claim was dismissed for default.

The court applied the "balance of probabilities" standard for motor accident claims, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt," as established in *Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.* and *Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC*.

Regarding the delay in FIR, it followed *New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Velu*, holding that delay is not fatal unless contradictions in evidence exist.

For income determination, it utilized the averaging method for ITRs as per *Ajay Kumar Mohanty* and *Rajbala v. Krishan Kumar Sharma*.

Future prospects and multipliers were governed by *Sarla Verma v. DTC* and *Pranay Sethi*.

The court found the vehicle’s involvement proved because the police filed a charge-sheet after investigation, and the eye-witness (PW-2), although unable to read English, consistently identified the numerical digits of the plate.

The discrepancy in the MLC (mentioning a "bike") was disregarded as the claimant was unconscious upon admission and the history was recorded by third parties.

On quantum, the court moderated the income by averaging the ITRs of two years, noting the latest ITR (filed after the accident) showed an improbable spike in earnings.

Finding the non-pecuniary awards for "Future Medical Expenses" and "Loss of Amenities" insufficient given the claimant's "profound disability" and psychiatric state, the court exercised its power to enhance these heads even without a cross-appeal by the claimant.

Interest was upheld for the default period as the claimant’s severe medical condition provided a reasonable excuse for the litigation delay.

It modified the total compensation from Rs. 1,25,35,440/- to Rs. 1,25,84,913/-, representing a net enhancement of Rs. 49,473/-.

The Court ordered the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest within 8 weeks and directed the Tribunal to disburse the funds according to the specified scheme.

The appeal was disposed of, with the stay on the award vacated.