The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kuncham Lavanya & Others v/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another., has allowed an appeal filed by the widow and children of a deceased scooter rider, setting aside a judgment by the High Court of Telangana and restoring the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The apex court's decision emphasizes the importance of considering the entirety of evidence and the conduct of parties in motor accident claim cases, even when the initial First Information Report (FIR) identifies the offending vehicle as "unknown."

The case arose from a fatal accident on March 20, 2011, when Mr. K. Yadagiri was struck from behind by a red Hyundai Verna car in Hyderabad. He succumbed to his injuries the following day. Initially, the FIR registered in connection with the incident listed the offending vehicle as unknown. Subsequently, the appellants, the deceased's family, filed a claim before the MACT seeking compensation of Rs. 23,00,000.

The MACT, after examining witnesses and considering the evidence, including the police investigation, allowed the petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 33,63,350 along with interest, holding the owner and the insurance company of the Verna car jointly and severally liable.

However, the respondent no.1-insurance company challenged this award before the High Court, arguing that the registration number of the offending vehicle was unknown at the time of the FIR, casting doubt on its involvement. The High Court sided with the insurance company, setting aside the MACT's award against them.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the claimants approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court:

The appellants' counsel argued that the High Court erred in disbelieving the testimony of an eyewitness (PW2) solely due to a delay of two and a half months in recording his statement. They contended that the police investigation corroborated his version, which was further supported by another eyewitness, a paan-shop owner. Reliance was placed on a previous Supreme Court ruling stating that mere delay in recording testimony does not automatically discredit a witness. It was also pointed out that in civil courts, witnesses are often produced by the parties themselves to expedite proceedings. The counsel emphasized that the eyewitness's identity was revealed through police investigation and he was a prosecution witness in the related criminal case.

Furthermore, it was argued that the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, coupled with the registration number provided by PW2, the mechanical inspection report indicating damage to the front right bumper of the Verna car, and the Investigating Officer's confirmation of the Verna's involvement, sufficiently established the offending vehicle's identity. The appellants also highlighted that a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the Verna car, prima facie indicating his negligence. They also pointed to the owner of the offending vehicle's admission of his driver's guilt during the police investigation.

The respondent no.1-insurance company's counsel countered that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence. They questioned the reliability of PW2's testimony, highlighting his delay in reporting the incident and his inability to identify the driver in both the criminal trial and the MACT inquiry. They also emphasized that the other eyewitness (PW3, the paan-shop owner) did not see the registration number and stated that the offending driver was different from the insured vehicle's driver. The insurance company's counsel also pointed to the lack of a damage report for the deceased's scooter and the minimal damage reported to the insured vehicle, which they argued contradicted the claim of a high-speed collision. They also raised concerns about the non-appearance of the vehicle owner before any of the judicial forums.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Conclusion:

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration of the arguments and evidence, noted that while the initial registration of an "unknown vehicle" in the FIR might raise questions, it is the subsequent investigation that aims to identify the culprit. The court acknowledged the doubts surrounding the conduct of PW2, particularly the significant delay in disclosing the registration number and the manner in which he claimed to have remembered it. The absence of the paan-shop owner's testimony before the MACT was also noted as a point of concern.

However, the Supreme Court also emphasized the crucial fact that the police investigation led to the filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of the Verna car. The mechanical inspection report, indicating a bent bumper on the front right side of the car, provided corroborative evidence suggesting a collision.

Significantly, the court highlighted the consistent absence of the owner of the alleged offending vehicle (respondent no.2) before the MACT, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, despite valid service of notice. This led the court to presume that the owner had no defense to offer. Furthermore, the court noted the police record indicating that the owner, when confronted, had telephoned the driver who admitted to the accident.

In light of these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the insurance company had failed to successfully establish any violation of the insurance policy terms and conditions by the driver that would absolve them of liability.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the MACT's award. The court clarified that this judgment was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case and would not prejudice any party in the ongoing criminal proceedings. The court also directed no order as to costs.

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court's willingness to look beyond initial ambiguities in accident reports and consider the comprehensive evidence and the conduct of the involved parties to ensure just compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents.