Discrepancy in vehicle description in FIR does not vitiate motor accident claim supported by eye-witness testimony.

On March 26, 2016, Ghanshyam (the deceased) was riding a motorcycle when he was hit by a car (Reg. No. UA07J 5445) driven by respondent no. 6.

Ghanshyam initially filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act but died during treatment on August 9, 2016, leading to the substitution of his legal heirs.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarded the claimants Rs. 19,61,090/- with interest, holding the car driver solely negligent.

The Appellant (Insurance Company) challenged the award on two grounds: first, that the FIR initially mentioned an "Alto" car while the claim involved a "Santro," alleging fabrication; and second, that the deceased contributed to the negligence.

1. Whether the discrepancy regarding the make of the car in the FIR (Alto vs. Santro) invalidated the claimants' case

2. Whether the accident was a result of contributory negligence by the deceased motorcycle rider

The court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which governs appeals against tribunal awards.

The adjudication relied on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" inherent in motor accident claims, where the testimonies of eyewitnesses (PW3) regarding the identity of the offending vehicle override minor discrepancies in a First Information Report (FIR).

the doctrine of contributory negligence requires the party alleging it to produce cogent evidence demonstrating the claimant's failure to exercise reasonable care

The Court dismissed the Appellant’s contention regarding the vehicle’s identity, noting that while the FIR was general, subsequent investigations and testimonies of PW2 (Soni Mahipal) and PW3 (Ajay Kaushal, an eyewitness) clearly identified the Santro car (UA07J 5445) as the offending vehicle.

The Tribunal held that a discrepancy in the FIR does not doubt the claimants' case when direct evidence is available.

Regarding contributory negligence, the Court observed that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence to support the claim that the deceased was at fault.

Conversely, the claimants provided ocular evidence through PW3 proving the rash and negligent driving of the car driver.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the compensation award of Rs. 19,61,090/-. The Court further ordered that any statutory amount deposited be remitted to the concerned Tribunal.