FIR Discrepancy in Vehicle No. Not Fatal to MACT Claim if Investigation & Eyewitness Testimony Clarify: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-05-25

FIR's Initial Error in Vehicle Number Not a Shield for Insurer if Investigation Clarifies: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds MACT Award

Chandigarh: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of NATIONAL INSUR. CO. LTD. vs NANCI AND ORS. (FAO 753 / 2007) , has reaffirmed that minor discrepancies in the First Information Report (FIR), such as an incorrect vehicle registration number, do not invalidate a motor accident claim if subsequent police investigation and cogent eyewitness testimony establish the identity of the offending vehicle. The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karnal.

Case Overview

The case arose from a fatal motor accident on May 26, 2004, where Tilak Raj , riding his motorcycle (HR-05T-8077), was hit by another motorcycle allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Nand Lal (Respondent No.1). Tilak Raj succumbed to his injuries on May 29, 2004. His legal heirs, Nanci and others, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The MACT, Karnal, vide its award dated September 7, 2006, held that the accident was caused by motorcycle No. HR-05D-7090, driven by Nand Lal , owned by Subhash Chander , and insured with the appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 7,60,000/- with 9.6% per annum interest to the claimants.

Arguments Before the High Court

The primary contention of the appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. , was that the vehicle implicated by the MACT (HR-05D-7090) was not the offending vehicle. They argued that the FIR (Ex.P1/A) initially mentioned the vehicle number as HR-05 F -7090. The insurance company contended that HR-05D-7090 was wrongly implicated later to claim compensation, as it was insured with them. They prayed for the award to be set aside and for the insurance company to be absolved of liability.

Counsel for the claimants (respondents) , Nanci and Ors., defended the Tribunal's award, submitting that they had also filed an appeal (FAO No. 3071-2009) for enhancement of compensation, which was listed for hearing.

Counsel for Nand Lal (driver, Respondent No.1) argued that the Tribunal had erred in law in granting compensation.

Tribunal's Findings and High Court's Affirmation

The High Court meticulously examined the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal had noted the initial discrepancy in the FIR regarding the offending vehicle's registration number (HR-05 F -7090). However, it relied on: * Eyewitness Testimony: PW1 Rakesh Kumar, who was a pillion rider with the deceased Tilak Raj , categorically stated that the offending motorcycle was HR-05 D -7090. His testimony remained consistent and detailed even during cross-examination. * Police Investigation: PW3 ASI Surinder Kumar, the Investigating Officer, testified that the investigation revealed the offending vehicle to be HR-05 D -7090. A criminal challan (Ex.R1) was filed against Nand Lal , the driver of this motorcycle. Mechanical inspection reports of both involved motorcycles were also on record. * Lack of Contrary Evidence: Nand Lal , the driver of the offending vehicle, did not step into the witness box to deny his involvement or the involvement of his vehicle.

The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized the established legal principle that proceedings before the MACT are to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities , and strict rules of evidence applicable in criminal trials are not insisted upon. The Court cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009(13) SCC 530 and Sunita and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, 2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 100 , which hold that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of all facts and minor discrepancies do not vitiate the claim if otherwise proved.

The High Court observed: > "Although the FIR (Ex.P1/A) initially recorded the number of the offending vehicle as HR-05F-7090, the subsequent police investigation conclusively clarified the correct registration number to be HR-05D-7090. ... What is crucial is the subsequent investigation and corroborative evidence that clarifies the actual involvement of the vehicle."

The Court further noted: > "The testimony of eyewitness (PW1) Rakesh Kumar... is of crucial evidentiary value. His deposition is consistent, detailed, and categorically attributes the cause of the accident to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 ( Nand Lal ) of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-05D-7090."

The Court found no merit in the insurance company's argument that the vehicle was falsely implicated, highlighting that Nand Lal was facing criminal trial for the accident involving the said motorcycle and had not challenged this.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court found no legal infirmity or perversity in the MACT's findings that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. HR-05D-7090. Consequently, the appeal filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (FAO 753 / 2007) was dismissed as devoid of merit.

The judgment also mentioned that a separate appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation (FAO No. 3071-2009) was allowed by the Court vide an order of the same date, and the compensation was enhanced.

This ruling reinforces the claimant-friendly approach of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring that genuine victims of road accidents are not deprived of compensation due to minor initial errors in documentation, provided the core facts of the accident and vehicle involvement are established through credible investigation and evidence.