FIR omission of the vehicle number is not fatal where other evidence establishes involvement.

Noorsingh Rathod died from injuries sustained in a motorcycle–lorry collision on 21 November 2015.

His wife and children sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that lorry No. TN-37/CW-1311 caused the accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, accepting the insurer’s contention that the lorry had been falsely implicated because its registration number was absent from the initial complaint and FIR.

The claimants appealed under Section 173(1), challenging the dismissal and seeking compensation.

1. Whether the evidence established that lorry No. TN-37/CW-1311 was involved in the accident, notwithstanding the absence of its registration number from the initial complaint and FIR and the insurer’s allegation of collusion and false implication.

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation and, if so, how it should be assessed and apportioned.

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence and the claimant’s case are assessed on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities; strict proof required in a criminal trial is unnecessary.

A charge-sheet is relevant but is not, by itself, decisive proof of an accident or vehicle involvement; the Tribunal must assess the entire evidence.

For compensation, *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation*, (2009) 6 SCC 121, supplies the deduction for personal expenses and multiplier principles; *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*, (2017) 16 SCC 680, governs future prospects and conventional heads; and *Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram*, (2018) 18 SCC 130, supports awards of spousal and parental consortium.

The Court considered the complete evidentiary record rather than treating the charge-sheet as conclusive.

The hospital informed police of the accident on the same day; the complainant’s further statement identified the lorry after enquiries near the accident site; and police seized the lorry on the day of the accident.

The investigating officer testified to those circumstances, while the insurer offered no independent material supporting collusion or false implication.

The Court treated the discrepancy over the precise place of seizure as minor and distinguished *Fawaz Ahmed Khan* on its materially different facts.

On compensation, it assessed the deceased’s age at 40 from the post-mortem report and adopted the KSLSA notional income of Rs.8,000 per month for 2015.

Applying 25% future prospects, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and multiplier 15, it calculated dependency loss at Rs.13,50,000.

It added consortium and other conventional amounts, including a 30% enhancement under conventional heads.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and award, and allowed the claim petition in part.

The claimants were awarded Rs.16,64,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization; the insurer was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

The award was apportioned 60% to the widow and 10% to each of the four children, with directions concerning release and fixed deposit.