Omission of vehicle details in FIR is not fatal to claims proved by preponderance of probabilities.

On October 18, 2011, Matul Chauhan (the deceased) was a pillion rider on a motorcycle when it was struck by an offending bus (HP65-4420) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

Both the rider and the deceased died on the spot.

The deceased was 28 years old and employed as a Forest Guard earning ₹15,033 per month.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹25,58,000 with 7.5% interest, holding the owner and driver liable while directing the insurer to indemnify the award.

The Insurance Company appealed (FAO 167/2017) challenging the involvement of the vehicle and the 50% addition for future prospects.

The claimants appealed (FAO 475/2017) seeking enhancement of compensation, citing incorrect multiplier application and tax deductions.

1. Whether the claimants proved the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence of its driver on the touchstone of preponderance of probability?

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT is "just" and in accordance with the settled principles of law regarding future prospects, deductions, and conventional heads?

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding compensation claims.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir, which established that the M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation requiring "just compensation".

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the court applied a 50% addition for future prospects for a deceased in public sector employment under 40 years and mandated a 10% increase in conventional heads every three years.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation to determine the multiplier of 17 and the 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram regarding the entitlement to parental and spousal consortium.

The court rejected the insurer’s argument regarding the non-mention of the vehicle number in the FIR, noting that motor accident proceedings are summary and decided on the "preponderance of probability".

It held that the testimony of eyewitness PW-3 was credible, and an adverse inference was drawn against the driver (Respondent No. 2) for failing to testify.

Regarding quantum, the court recalculated the income by adding 50% for future prospects to the gross salary of ₹15,033, totaling ₹22,549 per month.

After deducting the applicable income tax (10% slab for the year 2011) and 1/3rd for personal expenses, the court applied a multiplier of 17, resulting in a loss of dependency of ₹29,64,018.

The court further corrected the conventional heads by adding a 10% enhancement to the standard rates for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium as per the Pranay Sethi mandate.

The court enhanced the compensation from ₹25,58,000 to ₹31,07,018 and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks, maintaining the interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition until realization.