The court upheld the principle that discrepancies in vehicle registration do not negate liability when corroborated by eyewitness accounts.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present in Court today.

2. The instant appeal had been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court – I, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in M.A.C. Case No. 10 of 2015.

3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants on account of the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 7^th April, 2013 at about 10:45 P.M. on P.W.D. Road near Sabeda Bagan More within the jurisdiction of Barrackpore Police Station with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a motorcycle bearing registration no. WB-01AB//6998 which approaching at an excessive speed rashly and negligently clashed the victim and smashed him over resulting on his fall receiving severe injuries and was admitted at N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 15^th April, 2013.

4. The Learned advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted of the non-involvement of the offending vehicle as aforesaid in the accident since the complaint lodged by the wife of the victim two days after the occurrence of the accident mentioned the number of the motorcycle to be WB- 01AB/0998. According to the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company, the subsequent charge-sheet on completion of the investigation mentioned the number of the offending vehicle to be WB-01AB/6998 which had been a false implication of the offending vehicle since at the first instance the complaint lodged by the wife of the victim mentioned the number inclusive of ‘0’ which weirdly got replaced by the number ‘6’ without any plausible reason which evinced the fact that the offending vehicle as mentioned in the charge-sheet had been an afterthought to have been inculpated. It was further submitted that the eye-witness who had deposed as P.W. 2 to have witnessed the accident, during his cross-examination stated to have verbally informed the Police about the number of the offending motorcycle. He further stated to have visited the Hospital and thereafter met the Police for the second time. It was clear that the Police did not note the number of the offending vehicle since the eye-witness had mentioned the same to the Police.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted to have filed a cross-objection being COT/71/2017, inter alia, praying for an enhancement in the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/- as well as the compensation towards future prospect.

6. Since the occurrence of the accident, insurance policy, the driving licence, route permit etc and other ancillary issues are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company, this Court restrict itself only to the extent of determine the above-mentioned issues.

7. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties.

8. The eye-witness, P.W. 2 in examination-in-chief as well as cross-

examination mentioned the number of the offending vehicle to be WB-01AB/6988 which in reckless and negligent manner hit the victim resulting in his death. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company stated the complaint lodged by the wife of the victim mentioned a different number of the offending vehicle with a number ‘6’ instead of ‘0’ in the same. The accident occurred on 7^th April, 2013 and the complaint was lodged on 9^th April, 2013 within a span of two days the number of the offending vehicle which was mentioned by P.W. 2, the eye- witness to the Police verbally was not taken into consideration. The Police filed the charge-sheet marked as Exhibit 2 revealing