Delayed FIR per se is no ground to deny motor accident compensation if supported by cogent evidence.

On December 11, 2012, Rameshchandra was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven negligently by respondent Kamal @ Kachru, causing Rameshchandra to fall and sustain fatal injuries; he died on January 19, 2013

The Insurance Company challenged the award of Rs. 7,54,592/- passed by the Claims Tribunal, Jaora, alleging false implication of the vehicle due to a delayed FIR (lodged over a month after the accident) and lack of specific mention of the driver in medical discharge tickets

Conversely, the claimants sought enhancement of compensation, arguing the Tribunal underestimated the deceased's income and applied an incorrect multiplier

1. Whether a delay in lodging the FIR and omissions in medical records regarding the driver's identity are sufficient grounds to discard a claim of motor accident compensation

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper regarding the monthly income, multiplier, and consortium amounts

The court primarily applied Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for appellate review of claims

Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors. (2011 ACJ 911), which established that delay in lodging an FIR is not a ground to doubt a claimant’s case if there are cogent reasons, as human nature prioritizes medical treatment over police reports

The court also applied the State’s Minimum Wages Act circulars to determine income and standard principles for Calculating "Future Prospects" (25%) and "Consortium" (Rs. 40,000 per dependent) as per prevailing Supreme Court mandates

The court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal, noting that the police investigation eventually found the driver negligent and filed a charge sheet

It held that medical documents like MLCs and discharge summaries focus on treatment, not the exhaustive mechanics of an accident; thus, the absence of the driver’s name therein is not fatal

Regarding enhancement, the court found the Tribunal erred by assuming a monthly income of Rs. 4,000 when the minimum wage for unskilled labor was Rs. 4,945

Furthermore, since the deceased was 45 years old, the appropriate multiplier was 14 (not 13), and the deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4th given the number of dependents

The court also corrected the consortium award, granting Rs. 40,000 to each of the four dependents rather than a lump sum to the widow only

It held that delay in FIR is not fatal if the accident's factum is otherwise proved by eyewitness testimony and investigation

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 7,54,592 to Rs. 11,30,426 (an increase of Rs. 3,75,834), payable with interest, subject to the payment of additional court fees