Kuncham Lavanya vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd

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

Order dated 07.03.2019 in M.A.C.M.A.1 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

identified. However, since an FIR is not expected to be encyclopaedic 2

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