Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 7, 2025, said mere fact that initially the FIR recorded the vehicle as unknown in an accident case would not be fatal for the claimants to later come up with the specific identity of the vehicle and the driver, with the obvious caveat that the connection of the said vehicle has to be based on cogent and reliable evidence.

"The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not 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," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The court was considering an appeal filed by one Kuncham Lavanya and others against Telangana High Court's division bench judgment of March 7, 2019 which set aside the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rs 33,63,350 along with 7.5 per cent from the date of filing petition till its realisation.

The appellants-claimants were the widow and children of the deceased.

As per facts of the matter, on March 20, 2011, K Yadagiri (the deceased) was riding his Bajaj scooter and going from Habsiguda to his residence via Taranaka. At about 9:30 PM, when he reached Taranaka, his scooter was hit on the backside by a red coloured Hyundai Verna car, driven in high speed and negligently. Due to the accident, Yadagiri suffered multiple injuries and was taken to Gandhi Hospital through a 108 ambulance where he later succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was lodged on the next date.

The high court allowed the appeal, noting that the 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.        

Having heard the parties, the bench noted, in the present case, the factor in favour of the insurance company was that the conduct of the so-called eye-witness who was a consumer at a paanshop, and gave 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 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," the court said.

The court opined his 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 had to be taken with, if nothing more, at the very least, a pinch of salt.

It noted the fact that in the claim proceedings before the MACT, the paan-shop owner was not cited as a witness also raised doubts, for the reason that the connection of the consumer of the paan-shop 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.

"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. The Motor Vehicle Inspector prepared the inspection report which 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," the bench said.

The court also noted the owner of the vehicle had neither appeared before the MACT nor before the high court and not even before it despite valid service of notice, leaving it with no option but to presume that he had no defence to offer.   

In fact, the vehicle owner 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, the bench said.

Thus, the court held the insurance company could not 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. 

The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the high court's order and restored the MACT award. The court clarified the judgment had been rendered with the over-arching need to render substantive justice in the peculiarities of the case at hand and its observations would not aid or prejudice any party in the criminal proceedings.

Case Title: Kuncham Lavanya & Ors Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr