1. Claim for compensation following a fatal hit-and-run motor vehicle accident — dispute over vehicle involvement and authenticity of the accident. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1755
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Vinod Chandran, N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Rajamma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5172 of 2025
Decided On : 26-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Ms. Ilashri Gaur, Adv. Ms. Pragya Smiriti,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Ms. Ilashri Gaur, Adv. Ms. Pragya Smiriti,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities; substantial doubts or unreliability in eyewitness testimony can lead to the rejection of claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Claim for compensation - Appellants challenged the High Court's reversal of a Tribunal award in a hit and run case, where the only eyewitness's credibility was heavily scrutinized, leading to the conclusion that the claim lacked proof. The Tribunal originally awarded Rs.16,02,000/- but was overturned due to insufficient evidence linking the accident to the offending vehicle. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Evidence - The standard of proof in motor accident claims is based on preponderance of probabilities, and when substantial doubts arise regarding the incident or claims, it can lead to rejection of the case. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, consisting of the wife and family of the deceased, contended that he died in a road accident which was witnessed. However, the driver fled, and the body was abandoned. A significant argument was the timing and jurisdiction of the FIR. (Paras 1, 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded that the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence to uphold the original Tribunal's award to the claimants, pointing out the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and procedural lapses in the FIR. (Paras 2, 8)
Issues: The main issue was regarding the adequacy of evidence to establish the accident's occurrence and the vehicle's involvement. (Paras 3, 4, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the absence of credible evidence leads to skepticism about the claim, emphasizing that a properly registered and timely FIR is essential to substantiate allegations in motor accident claims. (Paras 6, 9)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimants assert vehicle involvement based on eyewitness testimony — Insurer alleges fraud and denies the vehicle's involvement in the accident. (Para 2 )
3. FIR registration in a non-jurisdictional station without explanation and contradictions in the chance witness's testimony undermine the claim's credibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
4. Proof of accident in motor claims relies on preponderance of probabilities, but FIR probity is diminished where valid suspicions of falsity exist. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment rejecting the claim petition upheld. (Para 9 )
6. What is the standard of proof required to establish an accident in motor accident claim proceedings?
Proof of accident in motor accident claims is determined based on the preponderance of probabilities. (Para 6 )
7. When does an FIR lose its probity in establishing the occurrence of a motor vehicle accident?
While an FIR can be relied upon to find an accident caused by rash and negligent driving, its probity is diminished if there is valid suspicion regarding its registration or if the claim's falsity is discernible from the evidence. (Para 6 )
8. How should the testimony of a chance witness be evaluated in a motor accident claim?
A witness whose presence at the scene is not established by documentary evidence is deemed a chance witness and their testimony is subject to strict scrutiny. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The appellants are the claimants who impugn the judgment of the High Court rejecting the claim petition, after reversing the award of the Tribunal. The claimants alleged that the only breadwinner of their family, the husband of the first appellant, died in a hit and run road accident, which fortunately was witnessed by a close associate of the family; a neighbour. The dead body of the victim was abandoned by the driver of the offending vehicle, who on the pretext of taking the victim to the hospital left him at a far-off place. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and PW2 was the eyewitness proffered by the claimants; both examined before the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal noticed the objection raised by the insurance company regarding the fraud played by the claimants. It was contended that the alleged offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. The driver and the owner of the vehicle were set ex-parte. The Tribunal held that there was no rebuttal evidence brought in by the insurance company as against the testimony of PW2, the eyewitness. RW1, an officer of the insurance company had merely raised an objection in his testimony, which though pleaded cannot be believed, since he was not an eyewitness. The insurance company was further faulted for not having examined the driver of the offending vehicle. The contention regarding the delay in registration of FIR was brushed aside on the ground that the FIR was first registered at a Police Station without jurisdiction, which was later transferred to the jurisdictional Police Station; the delay having occurred in the transfer alone. The objection of the insurance company having been rejected, the Tribunal went ahead and awarded an amount of Rs.16,02,000/- to the claimants. The insurer appealed against the award in which the High Court reversed the findings and held that the accident as also the involvement of the vehicle was not proved.
3. The complaint was filed alleging that the accident occurred on 18.06.2014 at 12 am at Singasandra crossroad. Actually, the accident occurred at 12 pm as spoken of by the witnesses and the time recorded in the complaint obviously is a typographical error. However, the fact remains that the High Court specifically noticed that the death of the accused, as per the intimation of death given by the family, by Ext.P13, is on 20.06.2014. Ext.P-13 was a document produced and marked by the claimants through PW1, which is the obsequies ceremony card.
4. According to PW1, she was informed of the accident in which her husband was involved, by PW2. PW1 deposed that she went in search of her husband in various hospitals and later was informed of a dead body lying abandoned, at a place, quite distant from the scene of occurrence. She is said to have taken the body from the lorry stand in front of the BTL College to the hospital, where her husband was declared brought dead. An FIR is said to have been lodged on 19.06.2014 in the Hebbogodi Police Station. Serious objection was raised regarding the said FIR registered at that Police Station which did not have any jurisdiction, which FIR was claimed to have been transferred to the jurisdictional Police Station i.e. Electronic City Traffic Police Station after 117 days.
5. If the FIR is registered on the basis of the accident or on the detection of the abandoned body, then it should have been registered in a Police Station having jurisdiction over either of the two locations. In the present case, PW1 had categorically stated that she was informed of the accident by PW2, in which event the location was clearly known to PW1 and the FIR ought to have been registered at the Electronic City Traffic Police Station itself in the first instance. There is no explanation as to why the FIR was registered in the Hebbogodi Police Station nor was any police personnel examined before the Tribunal, to substantiate the case of a proper FIR alleging a motor vehicle accident having been registered wi
