An omitted registration number does not prove false implication when the vehicle is promptly identified.

Manjunath died in a road accident on 20 May 2020 while travelling by motorcycle.

His family alleged that a tipper lorry struck the motorcycle from behind.

The initial complaint, lodged that night, did not state the lorry’s registration number but described identifying markings, including “KGP.” Police traced and seized the lorry the next morning, and the complainant identified it; a charge sheet was filed against its driver.

The Tribunal awarded the claimants Rs. 21,89,000 with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurer to pay.

The insurer appealed, principally alleging that the lorry had been falsely implicated.

Whether the insurer proved that the police had falsely implicated the offending lorry in the accident.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The judgment does not cite any precedent or set out a separate statutory test for determining whether a vehicle was falsely implicated. It assesses that contention on the evidence, including the prompt complaint, the description of the vehicle, its seizure and identification, and the investigation record.

The Court found that the complainant had promptly reported the accident and described distinctive markings on the lorry, despite not knowing its registration number. Police traced and seized a lorry matching that description early the next morning, and the complainant identified it that day.

The insurer produced no material evidence that the claimants had colluded with the police to implicate the vehicle; the charge sheet had also not been challenged. The Court therefore rejected the false-implication contention.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s award; pending applications were disposed of, and the trial court records were ordered to be transmitted.