### Delayed or Unexplained FIR Registration and Vehicle Seizure Cannot Solely Negate Legitimate Accident Claims

On October 6, 2014, the claimant (Respondent No. 1), a 21-year-old painter, was hit by a Maruti Van (CG-06-E-1416) while standing by the roadside, resulting in serious injuries and hospitalization.

The claimant filed for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Insurance Company (Appellant) contested the claim, alleging that the vehicle was falsely implicated through collusion, citing a two-month delay in the FIR against an "unknown vehicle" and the seizure of the van a year later.

The Insurance Company highlighted a pattern of similar delayed claims involving the same driver and owner.

The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,79,000/- with 6% interest.

The Appellant challenged the liability, while the claimant filed a cross-objection for enhancement.

1. Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident or was falsely implicated through collusion and delayed reporting.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper or required enhancement.

The Court primarily applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which governs the adjudication of compensation for motor vehicle accidents.

It relied on the principle that the objective of the Act is to ensure "just" and "fair" compensation, regardless of the valuation made in the initial claim petition.

The Court cited *Hare Krushna Mahanta v. Himadari Sahu & Another* (2025 SCC Online SC 262) and *Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto* (2023 1 SCC 204) to establish that a court/tribunal is not an impediment to awarding compensation exceeding the claimed amount if it is deemed just based on evidence.

The Court rejected the Insurance Company's plea of collusion, holding that mere delay in lodging an FIR or seizing a vehicle does not negate a claim if the testimony and medical records consistently support the accident's occurrence.

The Court found that the Appellant's allegations of fabrication were based on conjectures rather than reliable evidence proving the vehicle was not at the scene.

Regarding the cross-objection, the Court determined that the original award under non-pecuniary heads was insufficient.

By applying the "just compensation" doctrine, the Court found it necessary to increase the amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of income during treatment to reflect the actual impact of the claimant's functional disability.

It partly allowed the claimant’s cross-objection, enhancing the compensation by Rs. 1,10,000/- (specifically: Rs. 50,000 for pain/suffering, Rs. 50,000 for loss of amenities, and Rs. 10,000 for loss of income).

The total enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization; all other conditions of the original award remain intact.