Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1176
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
Rajamma & Ors.
…Appellants
Versus
M/s. Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The appellants are the claimants who impugn the
judgement 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.09.26
18:33:29 IST
Reason:
the driver of the offending vehicle, who on the pretext of
Page 1 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
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
Page 2 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
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
Page 3 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
proper FIR alleging a motor vehicle accident having been
registered within time and with the jurisdictional Police
Station.
6. 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.
7.
As has been rightly found by the High Court, the
testimony of PW2 is unbelievable. PW2 deposed that she was
running a wayside fruit shop near the scene of occurrence;
which has not been established by any document, like the
licence issued from the local authority, in which event she is
deemed to be a chance witness, subject to strict scrutiny.
Page 5 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
Further, her testimony is that, having witnessed the accident,
she came running and saw that her neighbour was the victim.
She immediately realised that the victim’s daughter was
studying in a nearby school, to which school she proceeded,
th
to bring the daughter who was studying in the 7 standard to
the spot. By the time she came back with the daughter, she
deposed in her chief examination, the vehicle had
disappeared and so had the victim. However, she also stated
in chief examination that the number of the vehicle was noted
by herself and the daughter of the victim. The said statement
is quite contrary to the assertion that by the time PW2 came
back with the daughter, the offending vehicle and the victim
had disappeared. The daughter of the victim was also not
examined.
8.
The High Court had listed out the reasons to reject the
application from (a) to (f) in paragraph 8 of its judgment. We
find ourselves to be in full agreement with the said reasoning
except the defect in the FIR regarding the time, which we
have already observed, could as well be a typographical
error. We are also informed that in the criminal case the
Page 6 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
driver of the vehicle stood acquitted, as evidenced by the
certified copy of the judgment produced by the Insurance
Company before this Court. PW2 who was examined as PW4
did not identify the driver. We have already found that the
testimony of PW4 is not trustworthy.
9. We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the appeal
and the same is dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……….…………………….….. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
……….…………………….….. J.
(N. V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
Rajamma & Ors.
…Appellants
Versus
M/s. Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The appellants are the claimants who impugn the
judgement 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.09.26
18:33:29 IST
Reason:
the driver of the offending vehicle, who on the pretext of
Page 1 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
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
Page 2 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
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
Page 3 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
proper FIR alleging a motor vehicle accident having been
registered within time and with the jurisdictional Police
Station.
6. 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.
7.
As has been rightly found by the High Court, the
testimony of PW2 is unbelievable. PW2 deposed that she was
running a wayside fruit shop near the scene of occurrence;
which has not been established by any document, like the
licence issued from the local authority, in which event she is
deemed to be a chance witness, subject to strict scrutiny.
Page 5 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
Further, her testimony is that, having witnessed the accident,
she came running and saw that her neighbour was the victim.
She immediately realised that the victim’s daughter was
studying in a nearby school, to which school she proceeded,
th
to bring the daughter who was studying in the 7 standard to
the spot. By the time she came back with the daughter, she
deposed in her chief examination, the vehicle had
disappeared and so had the victim. However, she also stated
in chief examination that the number of the vehicle was noted
by herself and the daughter of the victim. The said statement
is quite contrary to the assertion that by the time PW2 came
back with the daughter, the offending vehicle and the victim
had disappeared. The daughter of the victim was also not
examined.
8.
The High Court had listed out the reasons to reject the
application from (a) to (f) in paragraph 8 of its judgment. We
find ourselves to be in full agreement with the said reasoning
except the defect in the FIR regarding the time, which we
have already observed, could as well be a typographical
error. We are also informed that in the criminal case the
Page 6 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025
driver of the vehicle stood acquitted, as evidenced by the
certified copy of the judgment produced by the Insurance
Company before this Court. PW2 who was examined as PW4
did not identify the driver. We have already found that the
testimony of PW4 is not trustworthy.
9. We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the appeal
and the same is dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……….…………………….….. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
……….…………………….….. J.
(N. V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025