Suspicious Delayed Identification of Offending Vehicle Suggesting False Implication Vitiates Liability in Motor Accident Claims

On November 5, 2013, Smt. Priya (deceased) and her husband, Naresh Kumar (PW1), were involved in a motorcycle accident near Chaprauli Expressway, Greater Noida

An FIR was registered the same day by the claimant’s brother-in-law, stating that an "unknown vehicle" caused the accident

Forty-seven days later, an unnamed informer allegedly identified the offending vehicle as a TATA 909 (No. UP-86D-9531), leading to the driver's arrest

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the identified vehicle and awarded compensation of ₹9,38,863/- to the husband and ₹31,76,448/- for the wife's death

The Insurance Company appealed, alleging false implication and material contradictions regarding the vehicle's identity

The Court applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities" governing motor accident claims

It scrutinized the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the consistency of testimony during cross-examination

The Court further referenced the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, regarding cases where the offending vehicle remains untraceable

The Court found the sequence of events leading to the vehicle's identification "indigestible" and "surprising"

It noted that although PW1 (a senior insurance executive) claimed to have noted the vehicle number at the time of the accident, he failed to disclose it to his brother-in-law for the FIR or to the Investigating Officer (IO) during his hospital stay

The Court highlighted that the IO's receipt of highly specific information from an "unnamed informer" after 47 days remained unexplained

Furthermore, the Case Diary consistently recorded a different registration number (UP-86D-9537) and a different category of vehicle (a bus instead of a TATA 909 truck), which the Court viewed as more than a mere clerical error

The Court concluded that the claimant’s professional background as an insurance executive made his failure to report the vehicle number even more improbable, suggesting a collaboration between the claimant and the IO to falsely implicate the vehicle

The Court held that the involvement of vehicle No. UP-86D-9531 was not established and appeared to be a case of false implication

The Tribunal was directed to refund the deposited compensation to the Insurance Company

The Court granted the claimants liberty to approach the Uttar Pradesh Legal Service Authority or seek relief under the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, as the accident was deemed a "hit and run" by an untraceable vehicle