Claimants Fail To Prove Identity Of Offending Vehicle, Supreme Court Rejects Insurance Liability

A bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and K. Vinod Chandran heard the appeal by the widow and children of a deceased motorcyclist challenging the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) judgment which had held that the involvement of a Tata Magic vehicle in the fatal collision was not proved and, accordingly, set aside an award of compensation against the insurer.

The Court summarised that the High Court had rightly found a failure on the part of the claimants to discharge the primary burden of proving the occurrence of the accident with the offending vehicle identified by registration number. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conclusions and dismissed the appeal, holding that "liability of payment of compensation could not be fastened on the respondent-insurance company" in the absence of clear identification of the vehicle. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is a settled position of law that in a motor-accident claim petition, the initial burden to prove the factum of accident and involvement of offending vehicle lie on the claimants. It is the claimants who have to discharge this primary burden by establishing the occurrence of the accident and the involvement as well as identity of the vehicle at least on prima facie basis. Only then the onus to disprove shifts to the other side." The Court also noted that "mere mentioning of Tata Magic by name in the inquest Panchnama or in the FIR would not be sufficient to hold that it was the same Tata Magic belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 in absence of its clear identification."

Background

The claimants — widow Vanita and the children of Dhanji Ram Marekar — had filed a motor-accident claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, after Marekar sustained fatal injuries in an evening collision while riding his motorcycle to village Lohagaon. They alleged that a Tata Magic (registration MH-13-B-2719) coming from the opposite direction hit the motorcycle and that the vehicle belonged to respondent No.1 and was insured with respondent No.2. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,77,000 with 9% interest. The insurer challenged the award before the High Court, denying the accident and the involvement or ownership and insurance of the Tata Magic.

The High Court examined evidentiary gaps and found the claimants failed to prove the Tata Magic’s involvement. Important factors noted by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court included a long delay between the occurrence and lodging of the FIR (the Court recorded a gap of some 26 days), non-examination of the informant (Balaji) and other alleged eyewitnesses (Mahesh Deshmukh and Laxman Kamble), absence of the vehicle registration number in the inquest panchnama prepared the day after the incident, and the fact that an eyewitness (CW2/Deepak Lokhande) conceded he did not give the registration number to the police or in his Section 161 statement. The widow (CW1) was not with the deceased at the time of the accident and so could not identify the vehicle. The Supreme Court treated these considerations as cumulatively showing a dearth of evidence on identity and involvement even on the preponderance of probabilities.

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal proposition that claimants carried the initial onus to establish occurrence and vehicle identity at least prima facie, failing which the insurer could not be held liable. Consequently, the Court found no error in the High Court setting aside the Tribunal’s award and dismissed the appeal. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as infructuous.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6794 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1077)
Case Title: Vanita & Ors. v. M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Appearances: (List advocates if available, for both sides using the format)
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate