Appeal Dismissed Where Eyewitness Credibility and FIR Irregularities Undermined Claimants' Motor Accident Award

A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria heard an appeal by claimants challenging the High Court’s reversal of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The appeal arose from a claim for compensation by the family of a deceased breadwinner who, they alleged, died in a hit-and-run road accident; the insurer contested liability and the Tribunal’s reliance on an eyewitness.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the accident and involvement of the alleged offending vehicle were not proved on the preponderance of probabilities. The judges agreed with the High Court that the Tribunal erred in accepting the eyewitness account without adequate corroboration and in overlooking material irregularities in the FIR and related records. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is on preponderance of probabilities that the proof of accident is looked at in a motor accidents claim. An FIR registered as against the driver of the offending vehicle can be relied on to find the accident having been caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, that too by his rash and negligent driving as reported at the first instance. However, the preponderance of probabilities that arise from such an FIR registered would not have the same probity if there is a valid suspicion raised on the registration of the FIR and the falsity of the claim being clearly discernible from the evidence led itself." The Court noted that "the testimony of PW2 is unbelievable" and recorded that the criminal trial produced an acquittal of the driver; consequently, "We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the appeal and the same is dismissed."

Background

The claimants (appellants) sought compensation after the husband of the first appellant allegedly died in a hit-and-run on 18.06.2014. PW1 (the wife) and PW2 (an alleged eyewitness and neighbour) testified before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the insurer’s fraud allegations, disbelieved the insurer’s lone officer-witness, and held that the insurer failed to rebut PW2’s testimony; it awarded Rs.16,02,000 to the claimants. The insurer appealed, and the High Court reversed the Tribunal’s award, finding that accident and vehicle involvement were not proved.

The Supreme Court examined key factual and evidentiary defects identified by the High Court. The FIR was initially registered at a police station lacking territorial jurisdiction (Hebbogodi) and was transferred to the jurisdictional station after 117 days; no police witness was examined to justify the registration or transfer. PW2 claimed to run a wayside fruit shop but produced no documentary proof; she gave inconsistent account of having noted the vehicle number yet also said the vehicle and victim had disappeared when she returned with the victim’s daughter. The victim’s daughter was not examined, and the driver and owner had been set ex parte before the Tribunal. The criminal trial produced an acquittal of the driver, and the Court found the eyewitness testimony unreliable and the FIR registration suspect. The Court accepted the High Court’s detailed reasoning (save for a typographical error in the time recorded in the complaint) and dismissed the appeal. No interim relief was directed; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025 Case Title: Rajamma & Ors. v. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment