Unexamined hospital statements cannot establish that a deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

On 10 December 2014, Rafekul Mondal was injured when a Tata 207 mini vehicle allegedly overturned and fell on him while he was walking by the roadside. He died in hospital the following day.

His dependants brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,74,800 with 6% annual interest, finding the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed, disputing liability on the grounds of delay in lodging the FIR and alleging that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. The claimants cross-appealed, challenging the compensation awarded.

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the hospital record suggesting that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle undermined the claim or absolved the insurer of liability.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement, including on account of the deceased’s income and future prospects.

The claim was pursued under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; the Tribunal’s award also directed deduction of any compensation already paid under Section 140.

The Court stated that delay in lodging an FIR is not invariably fatal, particularly where the circumstances explain the delay.

It also treated the hospital record as unreliable in the circumstances because the person who supplied the accident information was not examined, and assessed compensation by considering income, future prospects, personal expenses, multiplier, and conventional heads.

The Court rejected the insurer’s objections. It found that the nine-day FIR delay was explained in the FIR and observed that family members would ordinarily attend to the injured person at hospital rather than immediately go to the police station.

The hospital information was not relied upon because its source was not examined; the evidence of P.W. 2, together with the FIR and charge-sheet, supported the finding that the vehicle fell on the deceased.

On quantum, the Court assessed monthly income at Rs. 4,000, added 40% for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 17. It calculated dependency loss at Rs. 7,61,600 and conventional compensation at Rs. 84,000, then considered Rs. 8,50,000 just and reasonable.

The insurer was directed to deposit that amount with interest before the Registrar General within eight weeks; any amount already deposited pursuant to the Tribunal’s award was to be adjusted, and the claimants could withdraw the compensation after completing the necessary formalities.