Delayed FIR or vehicle seizure does not defeat a motor accident claim supported by reliable evidence.

On 16 June 2011, Pundalik Rao, aged 51, was travelling in an Indica car with his son when the car collided with a truck bearing registration no. MP-09-GF-1949, which had allegedly been stopped negligently on the road. Pundalik Rao died in the accident.

The police registered a case and subsequently filed a charge-sheet under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the truck driver.

His legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹26,56,900.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173(1) of the Act, alleging false implication of the truck, contributory negligence by the deceased, and excessive assessment of compensation without proper statutory deductions.

Whether the truck was falsely implicated in the accident because of the delayed seizure of the vehicle, the initial FIR against an unknown vehicle, and the subsequent surrender of the truck by its owner.

Whether the accident resulted from contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who had driven his car into the rear of the truck.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s income and awarded just and reasonable compensation, including appropriate statutory deductions.

The Court applied Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Section 166, governing claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents.

It applied the principle that reliable eyewitness testimony and the results of police investigation, including the filing of a charge-sheet, may establish negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle, while delay in lodging an FIR or seizing a vehicle is not by itself fatal to a compensation claim.

Relying on Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Others, AIR 2011 SC 1226, the Court held that delay in lodging an FIR cannot defeat a genuine claim where the evidence is otherwise credible.

Compensation must be assessed on the basis of proven income, applicable deductions, age, occupation, dependency, and future prospects, and appellate interference is justified only where the Tribunal’s findings are perverse, legally erroneous, or mathematically demonstrably incorrect.

The Court found the testimony of P.W.2, who had been travelling with the deceased, to be natural and unchallenged, while P.W.2 and P.W.3 consistently attributed the accident to the truck driver’s negligent act of stopping the truck on the highway.

The insurer did not produce rebuttal evidence or examine an independent investigator to establish false implication. Accordingly, the delayed seizure, the initial reference to an unknown vehicle, and the owner’s surrender of the truck were treated as insufficient to displace the eyewitness and police evidence.

The Court also rejected the plea of contributory negligence, holding that the evidence established the truck driver’s sole negligence.

On quantum, it held that the Tribunal had reasonably reduced the deceased’s gross salary of ₹33,932 per month to ₹30,113 per month, thereby accounting for necessary statutory deductions, and had properly considered his age, secure employment, and future prospects.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the award dated 17 October 2012 awarding ₹26,56,900 was affirmed.

The insurer was directed to deposit the awarded amount, if not already deposited, within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. No order as to costs was made.