Supreme Court restores MACT award and holds insurer liable where vehicle identity was later established

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard an appeal against a Telangana High Court order which had set aside a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award insofar as it imposed liability on the insurer in a fatal road accident; the central issue concerned the identification of the offending vehicle and the standard of proof required where the FIR initially recorded the vehicle as "unknown."

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s impugned order and restored the MACT award of Rs.33,63,350 awarded to the deceased’s family. The Court held that an FIR recording the vehicle as unknown was not fatal to subsequent identification so long as the connection between the identified vehicle and the accident rested on "cogent and reliable evidence." The Court observed that while aspects of the eye-witness’s conduct "raise serious doubts on the authenticity," the overall investigation, inspection report and the police charge-sheet supported the MACT’s finding. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not identified. However, since an FIR is not expected to be encyclopaedic and is only for the purpose of putting into motion criminal law such that thorough and full-fledged investigation by the police ensues, it is the duty of the investigating agency to find out the identity of the culprit which in the present case would be the offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that initially the FIR records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/claimants to later come up with the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the obvious caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle has to be based on cogent and reliable evidence." The Court also remarked that aspects of PW2’s conduct "has to be taken with, if nothing more, at the very least, a pinch of salt."

Background
The deceased, K. Yadagiri, died after his scooter was struck from behind on 20.03.2011. The appellants his widow and children claimed Rs.23 lakh and the MACT awarded Rs.33,63,350 with interest, jointly and severally against the vehicle owner and the insurer. The insurer challenged the award before the High Court, contending that the FIR initially recorded the offending vehicle as unknown and that the principal eyewitness (PW2) disclosed the registration number only about two and a half months later; the High Court set aside the award insofar as it fastened liability on the insurer, finding PW2’s testimony unreliable and noting conflicts in eyewitness descriptions and inspection findings.

Before the Supreme Court, the claimants relied on two eyewitnesses, the police investigation, the motor vehicle inspection report and the charge-sheet; the insurer emphasised delays in PW2’s disclosure, discrepancies in eyewitness evidence, the absence of the alleged chit with the registration number, and an inspection report showing limited damage to the insured vehicle. The Court analysed the probative value of delayed identification, observed that an FIR need not be encyclopaedic, and balanced evidentiary shortcomings against independent indicia: a motor vehicle inspector’s report recording a bent bumper, a police charge-sheet, and the owner’s failure to defend in successive fora. The Court concluded that on the peculiar facts the owner and insurer bore responsibility and that the insurer had not discharged its burden to prove non-liability. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the peculiarities of the case and would not assist or prejudice criminal proceedings, and made no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2025 INSC 452
Case Title: Kuncham Lavanya & Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment]
For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment]