Confusion Over Vehicle Number In FIR No Ground To Deny Compensation: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced that technical omissions in initial police reports cannot override credible evidence, ruling that a brief delay in disclosing an offending vehicle's registration number due to witness confusion does not amount to false implication.

In a dual appeal involving a fatal motor accident, the bench of Justice Parmod Goyal dismissed the insurer's plea of foul play, holding that when the identity of a vehicle enters the public domain within hours of the incident and the driver admits involvement, the claim of 'false implication' loses legal ground.

Court Dismisses Insurer’s Plea of False Implication

The United India Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's finding on negligence, arguing that the non-mention of the Maruti car's registration number in the initial FIR lodged under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 suggested the vehicle was subsequently planted. The insurer contended that the eye-witness's failure to provide the number at the first instance was fatal to the claimants' case.

However, the Court found that the witness, Jai Bhagwan, had clarified the omission in a supplementary statement recorded on the same day as the FIR. The Investigating Officer (RW-2) confirmed that the witness had been 'confused' at the time of the initial report but later provided the specific registration number (DL-4CC-4936) after regaining composure. The Court noted that the driver (respondent No. 7) not only faced a criminal trial but also admitted the vehicle's involvement in the accident while appearing as a witness.

Rationale on Witness Reliability and Evidence

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In these circumstances, only on the ground that number of offending vehicle was not disclosed in FIR and was disclosed subsequently on the same day, reliable evidence of PW3 cannot be rejected. Admittedly, respondent No.7-driver of the offending vehicle was challaned in present case and he had faced criminal trial without any complaint against his involvement in accident."

Quantum Enhanced Based on Skilled Worker Minimum Wages

While the claimants sought compensation based on a monthly income of Rs. 12,300, the Court observed that the salary certificate produced lacked corroboration from income tax returns, ESI, or PF records. Relying on the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., the Court treated the deceased as a skilled worker and adjusted the income based on minimum wages from 2003.

The Court has following directions:

"Appellants-claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation except for conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Interest on enhanced compensation under conventional head shall be payable from August 2017 onwards till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award."

Key Takeaways:

Technical Omissions Not Fatal: An FIR is not an encyclopedia; failure to mention a vehicle number immediately does not invalidate a claim if the identity is established shortly after.

Driver’s Admission Overrides Insurer’s Denial: If a driver admits involvement in an accident while disputing negligence, the insurance company cannot maintain a plea of complete false implication.

Evidence for High Salary Claims: In the absence of tax returns or statutory benefit records (ESI/PF), courts will default to minimum wage standards rather than unverified private salary certificates.

Future Prospects for Skilled Workers: The Court reaffirmed the application of a 40% increase for future prospects for deceased victims under 40 years of age, following the National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. mandate.

Ratio Decidendi:

Reliable testimony of an eye-witness cannot be discarded solely due to the non-disclosure of the vehicle's registration number in the initial FIR, provided the omission is reasonably explained and the identity of the vehicle is established within a few hours of the report, especially when the vehicle's involvement is not denied by its driver.
 

Background:

The dispute arose from a 2003 accident where a 26-year-old man, Raju, was struck by a car near Blue Jay Hotel, Smalkha. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat, originally awarded Rs. 2,73,800. Two appeals were filed: one by the claimants seeking enhancement, and another by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking to set aside the award on grounds of fraud. The High Court analyzed the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the eye-witness to conclude that the 'confusion' regarding the vehicle number was genuine. Consequently, the High Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 8,16,908, applying a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 17.

Case Details:
Case No.: FAO-1374-2005 (O&M) and FAO-1263-2005 (O&M)
Case Title: Sunita and Others v. Rajiv Kumar and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate and Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 149