Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 452
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
@ DIARY NO.44210 OF 2019 ]
KUNCHAM LAVANYA & ORS. …APPELLANTS
A1: KUNCHAM LAVANYA
A2: KUNCHAM NARSING RAO
A3: KUNCHAM RAJANI
A4: KUNCHAM BHARATH KUMAR
A5: KUNCHAM HARISH
A6: KUNCHAM RAJESH
VERSUS
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
…RESPONDENTS
R1: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
R2: D. RAVINDRA REDDY
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.04.07
14:51:12 IST
Reason:
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Page 1 of 14
Delay(s) condoned. I.A.s No.37402/2020 and 37405/2020 are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal takes exception to the Final Judgment and
1
Order dated 07.03.2019 in M.A.C.M.A. no.77 of 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Division Bench
of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the appeal preferred by the
respondent no.1-insurance company was allowed by setting aside the
award dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT), in M.V.O.P. No.458 of 2011, to
the extent of imposition of liability on the respondent no.1-insurance
company.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. On 20.03.2011, Mr. K. Yadagiri (the deceased) was riding his
Bajaj scooter bearing Registration No. AP 28 AG 8602 and going from
1
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Page 2 of 14
Habsiguda to his residence via Taranaka. At about 9:30 PM, when he
reached Taranaka (HUDA Complex), his scooter was hit on the backside
by a red coloured Hyundai Verna car bearing Registration No. AP 29 AE
3763 that was in high speed and being driven negligently. Due to the
accident, Mr. K. Yadagiri suffered multiple injuries and was taken to
Gandhi Hospital through a 108 ambulance where he later succumbed to
his injuries. In this regard, First Information Report No.156/2011
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’) under Section 304A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 came to be registered on the next day, i.e.,
21.03.2011.
5. The appellants-claimants being the widow and children of the
deceased filed M.V.O.P. No.458 of 2011 before the MACT claiming a
compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs). The
appellants examined three witnesses and submitted twelve documents.
The respondent no.1-insurance company did not examine any witness
but submitted a single document viz . the insurance policy. The MACT
also examined the Investigating Officer as a Court Witness. After
appreciating the material before it, the MACT allowed the petition with
costs against the respondents jointly and severally and awarded a
compensation of Rs.33,63,350/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Lakhs Sixty-Three
Page 3 of 14
Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty) with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 07.09.2011 till realization.
6. The respondent no.1-insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A. No.77
of 2017 before the High Court contending, inter alia , that the registration
number of the offending vehicle was unknown on the date when the FIR
was lodged. The High Court vide the Impugned Order allowed the
appeal and set aside the Award qua the insurance company. While doing
so, the High Court noted, inter alia , that PW2 (an eye-witness)
maintained a studied silence for two and a half months even though he
had written down the registration number of the offending vehicle, and
hence his testimony was unreliable and the appellants-claimants had
failed to establish that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court
erred in disbelieving the testimony of PW2, solely due to the delay in
recording his statement and that he was brought to the MACT for
recording of evidence by the claimants and was not a summoned
witness. It is submitted that the police investigation corroborated his
version and his statement was also backed by another eyewitness, Mr. I.
Page 4 of 14
Vasudeva Reddy ( paan -shop owner). It was submitted that in Goutam
Joardar v State of West Bengal , (2022) 17 SCC 549 , the Court has
held that delay in recording testimony alone does not discredit the
witness. Further, it is common practice in Civil Courts, especially in some
States that many a times, to avoid delay, the Courts ask the parties to
call the witness(es) themselves instead of issuing summons therefor.
Thus, there was nothing unusual if witnesses were not summoned. The
fact remained that the identity of the eye-witness was revealed through
police investigation and he was already a witness for the prosecution in
the criminal case arising out of the FIR. Thus, it was wrong for the High
Court to conclude that he was a planted witness at the behest of the
claimants.
8. It was argued that the High Court erred in concluding that the
appellants failed to establish that the Verna car was the particular
offending vehicle, despite testimonies from two eye-witnesses and the
registration number provided by PW2. The mechanical inspection report
as well as the investigation conducted by the police further substantiated
that the Verna car in question, had been involved in the accident. The
Investigating Officer also came to the witness box and was examined
and confirmed that as per his investigation, the offending vehicle was the
Verna car bearing Registration No. AP 29 AE 3763. Reliance upon the
Page 5 of 14
statement of the other eye-witness (Mr. I. Vasudeva Reddy), recorded
during the trial of the criminal case, which was not part of the record of
the MACT, was absolutely unjustified, especially when he was not even
examined as a witness in the MACT proceedings.
9. It was further submitted that the High Court disregarded the ruling
of this Court in Mangla Ram v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2018) 5
SCC 656 , wherein it was held that negligence must be determined on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable
doubt. Even if acquittal occurred in a criminal case, the findings of
negligence in the motor accident claim remained valid. The filing of
charge-sheet against respondent no.2 prima facie pointed towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The High Court
ignored the statement of respondent no.2-owner of the offending vehicle,
who admitted to his driver's guilt. On these grounds, learned counsel
prayed for allowing the appeal and sought setting aside of the Impugned
Order.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1:
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-insurance company
argued that the High Court has appreciated the evidence in the correct
Page 6 of 14
perspective and the same does not require interference of this Court. It
was submitted that PW2 (U.K. Atriya) deposed that he was a bystander
at a paan -shop when he witnessed the insured vehicle collide with the
deceased's scooter at 80-100 kilometres/hour at 9:15 PM on 20.03.2011.
He deposed that he saw the offending driver who caused the accident
stop for a while before fleeing. And yet, admittedly he failed to identify
the offending driver in the criminal trial as also in the enquiry before the
MACT.
11. It was further submitted that PW3 (I. Vasudeva Reddy), the paan -
shop owner, did not see the registration number of the offending vehicle
but he did see the offending driver. He unequivocally stated that the
offending driver was different from the driver of the insured vehicle. Thus,
it was proved that the driver of the insured vehicle did not cause the
accident.
12. Insofar as the identity of the offending vehicle is concerned, it was
argued that PW2 fabricated the entire story of how he informed the
police about the insured vehicle being the offending vehicle. He admitted
that he remained silent about the accident, until about two and a half
months later when randomly a police officer visited the paan -shop.
Incredibly, he had the registration number of the offending vehicle written
Page 7 of 14
on a piece of paper at that moment, which is how he informed the said
police officer about the involvement of the insured vehicle in the
accident. It was submitted that this story has no probative value because
of its manifest improbability. And, learned counsel submitted, the alleged
piece of paper was never led into evidence.
13. It was further submitted that the High Court correctly rejected the
appellants’ reliance on PW3’s testimony because he admitted in his
examination-in-chief to have not noticed the registration number of the
offending vehicle. It was also pointed out that the appellants have
incorrectly submitted only PW-3's cross-examination without his
examination-in-chief in the instant appeal. Furthermore, the insured
vehicle was inspected on 08.06.2011. The report records only a bent
bumper with no other damage, which belies the possibility of a violent
collision at 80-100 kilometres/hour as deposed by PW2. No inspection
report of the scooter is on record to establish its collision with the insured
vehicle.
14. It was further argued that the vehicle’s owner did not appear
before any forum the MACT, neither before the High Court nor before
this Court. While the appellants claim that he admitted to the accident,
they have not disclosed before the MACT, the High Court or this Court,
Page 8 of 14
his evidence in the criminal trial. Therefore, it was submitted, that this
matter falls under Categories 1 and 4 of fake claims identified before this
Court by the Special Investigation Team; vide Order dated 16.12.2021 -
Safiq Ahmed v ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, (2021) 9
SCR 560 .
15. It was submitted that the appellants cannot rely on the presence
of the chargesheet in this case as: firstly , they never submitted the
chargesheet or the outcome of the criminal trial before this Court, and;
secondly , the criminal trial against the driver of the insured vehicle is
bound to fail when PW2 failed to identify him as the offending driver, and
PW3 had positively described the offending driver as someone other
than the driver of the insured vehicle. We were urged to dismiss the
appeal.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
16. We have bestowed anxious consideration to the lis . At first blush,
the odds seem evenly placed. Both sides have raised arguable issues.
Be that as it may, this Court is tasked upon to balance the law with the
factual position, moreso in the present case where the real factual
position may not be very clearly discernible due to various factors. This
Page 9 of 14
leaves the Court to adopt a practical view of what has emerged in the
depositions of the witnesses.
17. The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown
vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not
2
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. In the present case,
the factor in favour of the Insurance company is that the conduct of the
so-called eye-witness (PW2/U.V. Atriya), who was a consumer at a paan -
shop, gives his statement to the police about two and a half months after
the accident disclosing the registration number of the offending vehicle.
This raises serious doubts on the authenticity thereof as he states that
he had noted it on a piece of paper and when he again visited the spot
after 15 days, he came to know that the injured had passed away but
2
Para 20 of Superintendent of Police, CBI v Tapan Kumar Singh , (2003) 6 SCC 175 .
Page 10 of 14
even after lapse of the said 15 days, he neither informed the paan -shop
owner nor produced/handed over the chit of paper to the police on which
he claims the registration number of the offended vehicle was noted.
18. Thus, PW2’s evidence to the effect that he went to the paan -shop
after about two and a half months and found the police enquiring about
the accident when ultimately he disclosed his knowledge of the offending
vehicle and its registration number has to be taken with, if nothing more,
at the very least, a pinch of salt. Additionally, the fact that in the claim
proceedings before the MACT, the paan -shop owner was not cited as a
witness also raises doubts, for the reason that the connection of the
consumer of the paan -shop (i.e. PW2) was only through the paan -shop
and without the paan -shop owner testifying that the witness who claims
to have noted the number was a customer at his shop, the so-called
customer/eye-witness may not be able to pass the test of reliability
especially in the wake of the background facts and circumstances of the
present case.
19. However, on the other hand, a person has died, and the police
upon investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the driver of the
said Verna car. There is available on record. In the inspection report
dated 21.06.2011 prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector which is
Page 11 of 14
available on record discloses a bent on the front right side of the bumper
of the car to indicate that it dashed against something, which could have
been the scooter of the deceased.
20. The MACT’s Award had fastened liability jointly and severally on
the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company which has been set
aside vide the Impugned Order to the extent of imposition of liability on
the respondent no.1. The owner has neither appeared before the MACT
nor before the High Court and not even before this Court despite valid
service of notice. In the backdrop of the discussions in the preceding
paragraphs, in our considered opinion, the respondent no.2 has to take
responsibility.
21. The Court is left with no option but to presume that the owner of
the alleged offending vehicle which was the cause of the accident had no
defence to offer before any of the three fora, including this Court.
Moreover, it transpires from the record that during the police
investigation when the owner of the vehicle was confronted, he
telephoned the driver, who, as per the police version, admitted to the
accident in question having occurred.
Page 12 of 14
22. In fact, respondent no.2 had given a statement to the police to the
effect that he was not aware of the driver of his car having caused an
accident resulting in the car dashing the deceased’s Bajaj Chetak
scooter, until the police arrived at his house. When the owner telephoned
the driver, he confessed to his guilt and was immediately handed over,
along with the vehicle, to the police.
23. In the conspectus of the emerging background, the insurance
company cannot be said to have been successful in establishing that it
was not liable to pay for the accident, committed by the offending vehicle
which was insured, by taking the plea of violation of any terms and
conditions of the insurance policy by the driver.
24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order of the
High Court is set aside and the order of the MACT is restored. Given the
peculiarities of the case coupled with the over-arching need to render
substantive justice, we feel it would be just and proper to clarify that this
Judgment is passed in the peculiarities of the case at hand. Observations
in this Judgment shall not aid or prejudice any party in the criminal
proceedings.
25. No order as to costs.
Page 13 of 14
26. I.A. No.37409/2020 is allowed; the documents annexed are taken
on record.
………………..........................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
…………………..................…..J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 07, 2025
Page 14 of 14
2025 INSC 452
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025
@ DIARY NO.44210 OF 2019 ]
KUNCHAM LAVANYA & ORS. …APPELLANTS
A1: KUNCHAM LAVANYA
A2: KUNCHAM NARSING RAO
A3: KUNCHAM RAJANI
A4: KUNCHAM BHARATH KUMAR
A5: KUNCHAM HARISH
A6: KUNCHAM RAJESH
VERSUS
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
…RESPONDENTS
R1: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
R2: D. RAVINDRA REDDY
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.04.07
14:51:12 IST
Reason:
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Page 1 of 14
Delay(s) condoned. I.A.s No.37402/2020 and 37405/2020 are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal takes exception to the Final Judgment and
1
Order dated 07.03.2019 in M.A.C.M.A. no.77 of 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Division Bench
of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the appeal preferred by the
respondent no.1-insurance company was allowed by setting aside the
award dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT), in M.V.O.P. No.458 of 2011, to
the extent of imposition of liability on the respondent no.1-insurance
company.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. On 20.03.2011, Mr. K. Yadagiri (the deceased) was riding his
Bajaj scooter bearing Registration No. AP 28 AG 8602 and going from
1
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Page 2 of 14
Habsiguda to his residence via Taranaka. At about 9:30 PM, when he
reached Taranaka (HUDA Complex), his scooter was hit on the backside
by a red coloured Hyundai Verna car bearing Registration No. AP 29 AE
3763 that was in high speed and being driven negligently. Due to the
accident, Mr. K. Yadagiri suffered multiple injuries and was taken to
Gandhi Hospital through a 108 ambulance where he later succumbed to
his injuries. In this regard, First Information Report No.156/2011
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’) under Section 304A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 came to be registered on the next day, i.e.,
21.03.2011.
5. The appellants-claimants being the widow and children of the
deceased filed M.V.O.P. No.458 of 2011 before the MACT claiming a
compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs). The
appellants examined three witnesses and submitted twelve documents.
The respondent no.1-insurance company did not examine any witness
but submitted a single document viz . the insurance policy. The MACT
also examined the Investigating Officer as a Court Witness. After
appreciating the material before it, the MACT allowed the petition with
costs against the respondents jointly and severally and awarded a
compensation of Rs.33,63,350/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Lakhs Sixty-Three
Page 3 of 14
Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty) with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 07.09.2011 till realization.
6. The respondent no.1-insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A. No.77
of 2017 before the High Court contending, inter alia , that the registration
number of the offending vehicle was unknown on the date when the FIR
was lodged. The High Court vide the Impugned Order allowed the
appeal and set aside the Award qua the insurance company. While doing
so, the High Court noted, inter alia , that PW2 (an eye-witness)
maintained a studied silence for two and a half months even though he
had written down the registration number of the offending vehicle, and
hence his testimony was unreliable and the appellants-claimants had
failed to establish that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court
erred in disbelieving the testimony of PW2, solely due to the delay in
recording his statement and that he was brought to the MACT for
recording of evidence by the claimants and was not a summoned
witness. It is submitted that the police investigation corroborated his
version and his statement was also backed by another eyewitness, Mr. I.
Page 4 of 14
Vasudeva Reddy ( paan -shop owner). It was submitted that in Goutam
Joardar v State of West Bengal , (2022) 17 SCC 549 , the Court has
held that delay in recording testimony alone does not discredit the
witness. Further, it is common practice in Civil Courts, especially in some
States that many a times, to avoid delay, the Courts ask the parties to
call the witness(es) themselves instead of issuing summons therefor.
Thus, there was nothing unusual if witnesses were not summoned. The
fact remained that the identity of the eye-witness was revealed through
police investigation and he was already a witness for the prosecution in
the criminal case arising out of the FIR. Thus, it was wrong for the High
Court to conclude that he was a planted witness at the behest of the
claimants.
8. It was argued that the High Court erred in concluding that the
appellants failed to establish that the Verna car was the particular
offending vehicle, despite testimonies from two eye-witnesses and the
registration number provided by PW2. The mechanical inspection report
as well as the investigation conducted by the police further substantiated
that the Verna car in question, had been involved in the accident. The
Investigating Officer also came to the witness box and was examined
and confirmed that as per his investigation, the offending vehicle was the
Verna car bearing Registration No. AP 29 AE 3763. Reliance upon the
Page 5 of 14
statement of the other eye-witness (Mr. I. Vasudeva Reddy), recorded
during the trial of the criminal case, which was not part of the record of
the MACT, was absolutely unjustified, especially when he was not even
examined as a witness in the MACT proceedings.
9. It was further submitted that the High Court disregarded the ruling
of this Court in Mangla Ram v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2018) 5
SCC 656 , wherein it was held that negligence must be determined on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable
doubt. Even if acquittal occurred in a criminal case, the findings of
negligence in the motor accident claim remained valid. The filing of
charge-sheet against respondent no.2 prima facie pointed towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The High Court
ignored the statement of respondent no.2-owner of the offending vehicle,
who admitted to his driver's guilt. On these grounds, learned counsel
prayed for allowing the appeal and sought setting aside of the Impugned
Order.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1:
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-insurance company
argued that the High Court has appreciated the evidence in the correct
Page 6 of 14
perspective and the same does not require interference of this Court. It
was submitted that PW2 (U.K. Atriya) deposed that he was a bystander
at a paan -shop when he witnessed the insured vehicle collide with the
deceased's scooter at 80-100 kilometres/hour at 9:15 PM on 20.03.2011.
He deposed that he saw the offending driver who caused the accident
stop for a while before fleeing. And yet, admittedly he failed to identify
the offending driver in the criminal trial as also in the enquiry before the
MACT.
11. It was further submitted that PW3 (I. Vasudeva Reddy), the paan -
shop owner, did not see the registration number of the offending vehicle
but he did see the offending driver. He unequivocally stated that the
offending driver was different from the driver of the insured vehicle. Thus,
it was proved that the driver of the insured vehicle did not cause the
accident.
12. Insofar as the identity of the offending vehicle is concerned, it was
argued that PW2 fabricated the entire story of how he informed the
police about the insured vehicle being the offending vehicle. He admitted
that he remained silent about the accident, until about two and a half
months later when randomly a police officer visited the paan -shop.
Incredibly, he had the registration number of the offending vehicle written
Page 7 of 14
on a piece of paper at that moment, which is how he informed the said
police officer about the involvement of the insured vehicle in the
accident. It was submitted that this story has no probative value because
of its manifest improbability. And, learned counsel submitted, the alleged
piece of paper was never led into evidence.
13. It was further submitted that the High Court correctly rejected the
appellants’ reliance on PW3’s testimony because he admitted in his
examination-in-chief to have not noticed the registration number of the
offending vehicle. It was also pointed out that the appellants have
incorrectly submitted only PW-3's cross-examination without his
examination-in-chief in the instant appeal. Furthermore, the insured
vehicle was inspected on 08.06.2011. The report records only a bent
bumper with no other damage, which belies the possibility of a violent
collision at 80-100 kilometres/hour as deposed by PW2. No inspection
report of the scooter is on record to establish its collision with the insured
vehicle.
14. It was further argued that the vehicle’s owner did not appear
before any forum the MACT, neither before the High Court nor before
this Court. While the appellants claim that he admitted to the accident,
they have not disclosed before the MACT, the High Court or this Court,
Page 8 of 14
his evidence in the criminal trial. Therefore, it was submitted, that this
matter falls under Categories 1 and 4 of fake claims identified before this
Court by the Special Investigation Team; vide Order dated 16.12.2021 -
Safiq Ahmed v ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, (2021) 9
SCR 560 .
15. It was submitted that the appellants cannot rely on the presence
of the chargesheet in this case as: firstly , they never submitted the
chargesheet or the outcome of the criminal trial before this Court, and;
secondly , the criminal trial against the driver of the insured vehicle is
bound to fail when PW2 failed to identify him as the offending driver, and
PW3 had positively described the offending driver as someone other
than the driver of the insured vehicle. We were urged to dismiss the
appeal.
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
16. We have bestowed anxious consideration to the lis . At first blush,
the odds seem evenly placed. Both sides have raised arguable issues.
Be that as it may, this Court is tasked upon to balance the law with the
factual position, moreso in the present case where the real factual
position may not be very clearly discernible due to various factors. This
Page 9 of 14
leaves the Court to adopt a practical view of what has emerged in the
depositions of the witnesses.
17. The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown
vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not
2
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. In the present case,
the factor in favour of the Insurance company is that the conduct of the
so-called eye-witness (PW2/U.V. Atriya), who was a consumer at a paan -
shop, gives his statement to the police about two and a half months after
the accident disclosing the registration number of the offending vehicle.
This raises serious doubts on the authenticity thereof as he states that
he had noted it on a piece of paper and when he again visited the spot
after 15 days, he came to know that the injured had passed away but
2
Para 20 of Superintendent of Police, CBI v Tapan Kumar Singh , (2003) 6 SCC 175 .
Page 10 of 14
even after lapse of the said 15 days, he neither informed the paan -shop
owner nor produced/handed over the chit of paper to the police on which
he claims the registration number of the offended vehicle was noted.
18. Thus, PW2’s evidence to the effect that he went to the paan -shop
after about two and a half months and found the police enquiring about
the accident when ultimately he disclosed his knowledge of the offending
vehicle and its registration number has to be taken with, if nothing more,
at the very least, a pinch of salt. Additionally, the fact that in the claim
proceedings before the MACT, the paan -shop owner was not cited as a
witness also raises doubts, for the reason that the connection of the
consumer of the paan -shop (i.e. PW2) was only through the paan -shop
and without the paan -shop owner testifying that the witness who claims
to have noted the number was a customer at his shop, the so-called
customer/eye-witness may not be able to pass the test of reliability
especially in the wake of the background facts and circumstances of the
present case.
19. However, on the other hand, a person has died, and the police
upon investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the driver of the
said Verna car. There is available on record. In the inspection report
dated 21.06.2011 prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector which is
Page 11 of 14
available on record discloses a bent on the front right side of the bumper
of the car to indicate that it dashed against something, which could have
been the scooter of the deceased.
20. The MACT’s Award had fastened liability jointly and severally on
the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company which has been set
aside vide the Impugned Order to the extent of imposition of liability on
the respondent no.1. The owner has neither appeared before the MACT
nor before the High Court and not even before this Court despite valid
service of notice. In the backdrop of the discussions in the preceding
paragraphs, in our considered opinion, the respondent no.2 has to take
responsibility.
21. The Court is left with no option but to presume that the owner of
the alleged offending vehicle which was the cause of the accident had no
defence to offer before any of the three fora, including this Court.
Moreover, it transpires from the record that during the police
investigation when the owner of the vehicle was confronted, he
telephoned the driver, who, as per the police version, admitted to the
accident in question having occurred.
Page 12 of 14
22. In fact, respondent no.2 had given a statement to the police to the
effect that he was not aware of the driver of his car having caused an
accident resulting in the car dashing the deceased’s Bajaj Chetak
scooter, until the police arrived at his house. When the owner telephoned
the driver, he confessed to his guilt and was immediately handed over,
along with the vehicle, to the police.
23. In the conspectus of the emerging background, the insurance
company cannot be said to have been successful in establishing that it
was not liable to pay for the accident, committed by the offending vehicle
which was insured, by taking the plea of violation of any terms and
conditions of the insurance policy by the driver.
24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order of the
High Court is set aside and the order of the MACT is restored. Given the
peculiarities of the case coupled with the over-arching need to render
substantive justice, we feel it would be just and proper to clarify that this
Judgment is passed in the peculiarities of the case at hand. Observations
in this Judgment shall not aid or prejudice any party in the criminal
proceedings.
25. No order as to costs.
Page 13 of 14
26. I.A. No.37409/2020 is allowed; the documents annexed are taken
on record.
………………..........................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
…………………..................…..J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 07, 2025
Page 14 of 14