Supreme Court: Motor Accident Claim Dismissed — FIR Delay, Unreliable Eyewitness and Acquittal of Driver Undermine Case

Case Name: Rajamma & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment: September 26, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1176, Civil Appeal No. 5172 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants challenging the High Court’s rejection of compensation. It upheld findings that the alleged hit-and-run accident was not proved due to serious doubts about the FIR, credibility of the eyewitness, and the acquittal of the driver in criminal proceedings. The Court held that while motor accident claims are decided on preponderance of probabilities, suspicion arising from falsity in the FIR and contradictions in testimony can defeat the claim.

Summary: The case arose from the death of the appellants’ breadwinner in June 2014. The Tribunal had awarded ₹16,02,000 based on the testimony of PW2, an alleged eyewitness neighbor, and PW1, the widow. The Insurance Company appealed, contending fraud and false implication of its vehicle. The High Court reversed the award, holding accident and vehicle involvement were not proved. On further appeal, the Supreme Court found multiple infirmities: the FIR was registered at Hebbogodi Police Station without jurisdiction and transferred to Electronic City Traffic Police Station after 117 days; PW2’s testimony was inconsistent—claiming to have noted the vehicle number despite stating that both the vehicle and victim had disappeared when she returned with the deceased’s daughter, who herself was not examined; and PW2 was a chance witness without documentary proof of presence. Additionally, the driver had already been acquitted in the parallel criminal trial, further weakening the claim. The Court held that these contradictions created valid suspicion that the accident was not established.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision rejecting the claim petition, confirming that no compensation was payable in the absence of credible proof of accident and vehicle involvement.