Motor accident claim fails where claimants do not credibly establish the offending vehicle’s involvement.

Dehi Kunwar @ Dehi Ram Konwar, aged approximately 54 years and employed as an Ex-Fireman Grade-I under the MES, sustained serious injuries in a road accident near Dhara Basti, Darjeeling, on 20 December 2014 and subsequently died from the injuries.

His wife and son instituted a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹30,27,700 with interest.

The claimants alleged that motorcycle no. WB-74K-3887 was involved in the accident. However, the initial written complaint and FIR referred to motorcycle no. WB-74Z-0966.

During investigation, the police allegedly treated WB-74K-3887 as the offending vehicle and submitted a charge-sheet against its driver.

The Tribunal awarded ₹27,79,124 to the claimants in equal shares.

The claimants appealed seeking enhancement by adding spousal and parental consortium and awarding interest from the date of filing. The Insurance Company filed a cross-appeal challenging the finding that WB-74K-3887 was involved in the accident and contending that the vehicle had been subsequently implanted.

Whether the claimants proved, on a preponderance of probabilities, that motorcycle no. WB-74K-3887 was the vehicle involved in the accident?

Whether the inconsistencies between the initial complaint/FIR and the subsequent identification of the offending vehicle rendered the claim unreliable?

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement by way of spousal and parental consortium and interest from the date of filing?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which a claimant must establish the foundational facts of the motor accident, including the identity and involvement of the offending vehicle; the applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also considered Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act concerning adverse inference for withholding material evidence.

It relied on Usha Devi v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raj Kumar Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kulsum Begam Molla v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the principle that discrepancies in the vehicle number, coupled with other evidentiary infirmities, may defeat a claim where the vehicle’s involvement is not credibly established.

The Court distinguished National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pratima Barick and Ashalata Suryakant Patil v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., where the claimants had otherwise discharged the initial burden or the vehicle had been sufficiently identified.

The claims for consortium and interest were based on the principles recognised in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, V. Pathmavathi v. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kohinur Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Niva Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

The Court found that the claimants failed to establish the involvement of WB-74K-3887. The initial complaint lodged by the deceased’s son identified WB-74Z-0966, whereas the claim petition and subsequent charge-sheet relied upon WB-74K-3887.

The son admitted that he had not witnessed the accident and had learned about the alleged offending vehicle from another person, Rana Dey, who was cited in the charge-sheet but was not examined.

The alleged eyewitness, P.W.2, was not named in the charge-sheet, was not examined by the police, and claimed to have been approximately 50 metres away from the spot.

The later complaint allegedly correcting the vehicle number was neither properly proved nor explained in the claimants’ evidence, and the charge-sheet did not refer to it.

Although the police investigation and charge-sheet supported the claimants’ version, the Court held that those materials could not cure the fundamental inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the vehicle’s identity.

Since the foundational fact of involvement was not proved, the questions of negligence, consortium, and interest did not arise for effective adjudication.

The Insurance Company’s appeal, FMAT (MV) 102 of 2024, was allowed; the Tribunal’s award dated 31 July 2024 for ₹27,79,124 was set aside.

The claimants’ appeal, FMA 49 of 2024, seeking consortium and interest, was dismissed.

Any compensation amount deposited by the Insurance Company in the High Court was directed to be refunded to it, and pending applications were disposed of.