Motor accident compensation reduced for failure to produce pre-accident salary records.

Ajoy Dey claimed that on 23 October 2017, a vehicle bearing registration no. WB-19D-6344 struck him, causing serious injuries, including compound fractures to his left arm and leg and permanent disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed his claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and awarded ₹47,84,242 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing.

The insurer appealed, challenging liability and the quantum; Dey filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement.

1. Whether the delayed lodging of the FIR and alleged inconsistencies in the evidence undermined the finding that the accident resulted from the driver’s rash and negligent driving

2. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation was justified in light of the evidence concerning disability, medical expenses, salary and the claimant’s post-accident employment

3. Whether the claimant was entitled to enhancement of the award, or whether the compensation should be reduced

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for compensation claims arising from motor accidents.

The Court applied the principle that delay in lodging an FIR is not, by itself, fatal to an accident claim, particularly where the injured person is hospitalised and the circumstances reasonably explain the delay.

In assessing compensation, it considered the evidence of disability and loss of salary, including the Medical Board certificate and pay slips; it also noted the need for relevant salary evidence from before the accident to support the assessment.

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to the finding of negligence. It reasoned that the claimant was injured and hospitalised, and that the FIR was lodged by the wife of another injured person; the delay therefore did not discredit the claim. The Tribunal had also considered the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 6 in finding that the vehicle’s driver was rash and negligent.

On quantum, the Court accepted the evidence of disability and salary loss but found that the claimant had not produced a pre-accident pay slip, while the salary evidence relied on related to a period after the accident when salaries had generally increased. It therefore considered the Tribunal’s assessment insufficiently supported and fixed compensation at ₹45 lakh.

It directed the insurer to deposit ₹45 lakh with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim until the date of judgment, within eight weeks of communication of the order. If the Tribunal’s award had already been deposited, no further deposit was required; the claimant could withdraw the amount upon completing the necessary formalities, and any balance with accrued interest was to be returned to the insurer.