Rajamma vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025

Rajamma & Ors. …Appellants Versus M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

…Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The appellants are the claimants who impugn the

judgement of the High Court rejecting the claim petition, after

reversing the award of the Tribunal. The claimants alleged

that the only breadwinner of their family, the husband of the

first appellant, died in a hit and run road accident, which

fortunately was witnessed by a close associate of the family;

Signature Not Verified a neighbour. The dead body of the victim was abandoned by Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.09.26 18:33:29 IST Reason: the driver of the offending vehicle, who on the pretext of

Page 1 of 7 Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025 taking the victim to the hospital left him at a far-off place. PW1

is the wife of the deceased and PW2 was the eyewitness

proffered by the claimants; both examined before the

Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal noticed the objection raised by the

insurance company regarding the fraud played by the

claimants. It was contended that the alleged offending vehicle

was not at all involved in the accident. The driver and the

owner of the vehicle were set ex-parte. The Tribunal held that

there was no rebuttal evidence brought in by the insurance

company as against the testimony of PW2, the eyewitness.

RW1, an officer of the insurance company had merely raised

an objection in his testimony, which though pleaded cannot

be believed, since he was not an eyewitness. The insurance

company was further faulted for not having examined the

driver of the offending vehicle. The contention regarding the

delay in registration of FIR was brushed aside on the ground

that the FIR was first registered at a Police Station without

jurisdiction, which was later transferred to the jurisdictional

Police Station; the delay having occurred in the transfer

Page 2 of 7 Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025 alone. The objection of the insurance company having been

rejected, the Tribunal went ahead and awarded an amount of

Rs.16,02,000/- to the claimants. The insurer appealed against

the award in which the High Court reversed the findings and

held that the accident as also the involvement of the vehicle

was not proved.

3. The complaint was filed alleging that the accident

occurred on 18.06.2014 at 12 am at Singasandra crossroad.

Actually, the accident occurred at 12 pm as spoken of by the

witnesses and the time recorded in the complaint obviously

is a typographical error. However, the fact remains that the

High Court specifically noticed that the death of the accused,

as per the intimation of death given by the family, by Ext.P13,

is on 20.06.2014. Ext.P-13 was a document produced and

marked by the claimants through PW1, which is the

obsequies ceremony card.

4. According to PW1, she was informed of the accident in

which her husband was involved, by PW2. PW1 deposed that

she went in search of her husband in various hospitals and

later was informed of a dead body lying abandoned, at a

Page 3 of 7 Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025 place, quite distant from the scene of occurrence. She is said

to have taken the body from the lorry stand in front of the BTL

College to the hospital, where her husband was declared

brought dead. An FIR is said to have been lodged on

19.06.2014 in the Hebbogodi Police Station. Serious objection

was raised regarding the said FIR registered at that Police

Station which did not have any jurisdiction, which FIR was

claimed to have been transferred to the jurisdictional Police

Station i.e. Electronic City Traffic Police Station after 117 days.

5. If the FIR is registered on the basis of the accident or on

the detection of the abandoned body, then it should have

been registered in a Police Station having jurisdiction over

either of the two locations. In the present case, PW1 had

categorically stated that she was informed of the accident by

PW2, in which event the location was clearly known to PW1

and the FIR ought to have been registered at the Electronic

City Traffic Police Station itself in the first instance. There is

no explanation as to why the FIR was registered in the

Hebbogodi Police Station nor was any police personnel

examined before the Tribunal, to substantiate the case of a

Page 4 of 7 Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025 proper FIR alleging a motor vehicle accident having been

registered within time and with the jurisdictional Police

Station.

6. It is on preponderance of probabilities that the proof of

accident is looked at in a motor accidents claim. An FIR

registered as against the driver of the offending vehicle can

be relied on to find the accident having been caused by the

driver of the offending vehicle, that too by his rash and

negligent driving as reported at the first instance. However,

the preponderance of probabilities that arise from such an

FIR registered would not have the same probity if there is a

valid suspicion raised on the registration of the FIR and the

falsity of the claim being clearly discernible from the

evidence led itself.

7. As has been rightly found by the High Court, the

testimony of PW2 is unbelievable. PW2 deposed that she was

running a wayside fruit shop near the scene of occurrence;

which has not been established by any document, like the

licence issued from the local authority, in which event she is

deemed to be a chance witness, subject to strict scrutiny.

Page 5 of 7 Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025 Further, her testimony is that, having witnessed the accident,

she came running and saw that her neighbour was the victim.

She immediately realised that the victim’s daughter was

studying in a nearby school, to which school she proceeded,

to bring the daughter who was studying in the 7th standard to

the spot. By the time she came back with the daughter, she

deposed in her chief examination, the vehicle had

disappeared and so had the victim. However, she also stated

in chief examination that the number of the vehicle was noted

by herself and the daughter of the victim. The said statement

is quite contrary to the assertion that by the time PW2 came

back with the daughter, the offending vehicle and the victim

had disappeared. The daughter of the victim was also not

examined.

8. The High Court had listed out the reasons to reject the

application from (a) to (f) in paragraph 8 of its judgment. We

find ourselves to be in full agreement with the said reasoning

except the defect in the FIR regarding the time, which we

have already observed, could as well be a typographical

error. We are also informed that in the criminal case the

Page 6 of 7 Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025 driver of the vehicle stood acquitted, as evidenced by the

certified copy of the judgment produced by the Insurance

Company before this Court. PW2 who was examined as PW4

did not identify the driver. We have already found that the

testimony of PW4 is not trustworthy.

9. We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the appeal

and the same is dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……….…………………….….. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

……….…………………….….. J.

(N. V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.

Page 7 of 7 Civil Appeal No.5172 of 2025