Vehicle involvement cannot be established on unreliable, delayed identification evidence.

On 27 April 2011, Chander Prabha was fatally injured after a motorcycle carrying her as a pillion rider fell when the door of a reportedly golden Honda City was opened near AIIMS Hospital.

The motorcycle driver’s next-day complaint described the car but did not identify its registration number.

The Tribunal awarded the claimants ₹34,08,200 with interest, finding the car involved and its driver negligent on the basis of three alleged eyewitnesses.

The Insurance Company appealed, disputing the car’s involvement.

The High Court had earlier directed the Tribunal to frame the specific issue of whether the identified Honda City was involved in the accident.

Whether Honda City HR-26-M-7364 was involved in the accident with the motorcycle on 27 April 2011

Whether the evidence established the offending vehicle’s involvement and negligence so as to sustain the Tribunal’s award

In motor accident claims, the relevant facts are assessed on a preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; the court referred to Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171, on this approach.

The Court also relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar, 2026:DHC:2876, concerning the insufficiency, on the facts of that case, of highly specific information about an alleged offending vehicle emerging substantially after the accident to establish its involvement.

For the claimants’ alternative remedy, the Court referred to Clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme, 1989, framed under Section 163(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022.

The Court found that the motorcycle driver, PW-3, could establish the accident but had not recorded or supplied the car’s registration number.

PW-5 offered no explanation for how he came to testify and had not reported the accident to police.

PW-4’s account—that he recorded the number but waited until seeing a poster to contact the family—was considered implausible; the investigation also recorded that his call-detail records did not place him near AIIMS at the relevant time.

The Court further noted the untraced police report and the FSL finding of no impact or fresh repair marks on the car.

Taken together, the evidence did not reliably establish that this particular Honda City was involved; the Tribunal had therefore erred in treating the witnesses’ accounts as aligned and credible.

The Tribunal was directed to release to the Insurance Company the compensation deposited with accrued interest; any amount already released to the claimants was not recoverable from them.

The claimants were given liberty to pursue relief under the applicable hit-and-run compensation scheme.