Orissa HC Rejects Insurer’s Planted-Truck Claim Despite 204-Day FIR Delay, But Cuts Family’s Award To ₹15.6 Lakh For Unproved Mason Income

On 11 February 2020, Kunu Hembram was allegedly struck by a truck while riding a bicycle and later died from his injuries.

An FIR was registered 204 days after the accident; the investigation resulted in a charge sheet against the truck driver.

The deceased’s dependants brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded them ₹19,01,125 with 6% annual interest.

The insurer appealed, challenging both the genuineness of the accident—alleging that the truck had been planted—and the assessment of compensation

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, dependants may seek compensation for death caused by a motor vehicle accident, and an aggrieved party may appeal the Tribunal’s award.

Delay in lodging an FIR does not, by itself, establish that an accident claim is fabricated; the evidence and explanation for the delay must be considered.

A party asserting that a vehicle was planted must establish that allegation with evidence; where claimants have adduced sufficient evidence of the accident, the insurer cannot displace it through unsupported suspicion.

For compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, to add 40% for future prospects for a deceased below 40 years of age.

The Court assessed income by reference to the minimum wage for an unskilled labourer, deducted one-fourth for personal and living expenses given four dependants, applied a multiplier of 15, and awarded conventional damages.

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to liability.

It found that the FIR explained the delay and that delay alone did not make the claim fabricated; the police records and charge sheet supported the claimants’ account, while the insurer produced no ocular evidence to dispute the accident.

Hospital records documented treatment for accident-related injuries until the deceased’s death, and the absence of an autopsy did not undermine the other evidence linking the death to those injuries.

On quantum, the Court found no reliable evidence establishing the deceased’s occupation as a mason and therefore used the minimum wage for unskilled work.

Applying the future-prospects addition, dependency deduction, and multiplier, it calculated loss of dependency at ₹14,74,200 and conventional damages at ₹84,000, rounding the total to ₹15,60,000.

The Court affirmed the finding that the deceased died from injuries sustained in the accident involving the insured truck, but modified the compensation from ₹19,01,125 to ₹15,60,000, with 6% annual interest from the date the claim application was filed, 2 March 2021, until realization.

The insurer was directed to pay the modified amount within eight weeks; the statutory deposit and accrued interest were to be refunded upon proof of payment to the Tribunal.