The Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling of the High Court dismissing a motor accident claim for compensation, ruling that evidence adduced by the claimants was untrustworthy and indicative of a false claim.
Background:
The case was based on a supposed hit-and-run accident that occurred on June 18, 2014, in which the claimants reported that the breadwinner of their family lost his life. The wife of the deceased (PW1) and a supposed eyewitness (PW2) gave evidence before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
The Tribunal had accepted their evidence and granted compensation of Rs. 16.02 lakh to the family, overruling the objections of the insurer on grounds of probable fraud. It held that the insurance company had not been able to refute PW2's depositions satisfactorily or interrogate the driver of the vehicle.
This conclusion was, however, reversed on appeal by the High Court, declaring that the accident and participation of the offending vehicle as alleged were not established beyond suspicion.
Problems with the FIR and Testimony:
One of the issues of controversy was the FIR registration. While the complaint made mention of an accident on June 18, FIR was registered on June 19, 2014, only at Hebbogodi Police Station, which was not competent. It was subsequently shifted to the correct station—Electronic City Traffic Police—after 117 days of delay. No proper reason was cited for this procedural fault.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that if the wife (PW1) knew the location of the accident, it would have been obligatory to file FIR with the jurisdictional traffic police without any delay. The lack of evidence from the police officers also undermined the credibility of the FIR.
The Court also detected serious weaknesses in the versions of PW2, who was the supposed eyewitness. Though she said she operated a fruit stall close to the point of accident, documentary evidence was lacking to verify she was there. Her story—that she had left the scene after having seen the accident to pick the victim's daughter from school, only to find upon her return that the vehicle and victim were missing—contradicted her assertion that she recorded the number of the vehicle as well as the victim's daughter. The daughter, however, was never cross-examined in court.
Court's Findings:
The bench observed that in claims of motor accidents, courts are guided by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, but the reliance is diminished where the FIR itself is suspect or the evidence indicates exaggerated or fabricated claim.
The High Court's argument for dismissing the claim was ratified by the Supreme Court. The Court also emphasized that in the accompanying criminal case, the driver of the vehicle had already been acquitted, and PW2 had not identified him.
Verdict:
Holding that the evidence was not credible and the supposed accident had not been established as involving the accused vehicle, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. Pending applications, if any, were also disposes of.
