Preponderance Of Probabilities Arising From FIR Against Offending Vehicle’s Driver Would Lose Probity If Suspicion Is Raised On FIR: Supreme Court

The appeals before the Apex Court were filed by the claimants, challenging the judgment rejecting their claim petition, after reversing the award of the Tribunal.

The Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria held, “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.”

Advocate C.B. Gururaj represented the Appellant, while AOR Prerna Mehta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

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 was witnessed by a close associate of the family, a neighbour. The dead body of the victim was abandoned by the driver of the offending vehicle, who, on the pretext of taking the victim to the hospital, left him at a far-off place.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the wife of the deceased claimed that she was informed of the accident in which her husband was involved by the eyewitness. An FIR was said to have been lodged, but a serious objection was raised regarding the said FIR registered at the Police Station, which did not have any jurisdiction. The FIR was claimed to have been transferred to the jurisdictional Police Station after 117 days.

“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”, the Bench stated while also adding, “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 proper FIR alleging a motor vehicle accident having been registered within time and with the jurisdictional Police Station.”

The Bench was of the view that the High Court had rightly held that the testimony of the eyewitness was unbelievable. In her chief examination, she had stated that by the time she came back with the victim’s daughter, the vehicle had disappeared, and so had the victim. However, she had also stated 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”, it noted.

The Bench was also informed that in the criminal case, the driver of the vehicle was acquitted, as evidenced by the certified copy of the judgment produced by the Insurance Company. The eyewitness did not identify the driver, and her testimony was not trustworthy. Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Rajamma v. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1176)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate C.B. Gururaj, AOR Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Advocates Ilashri Gaur, Pragya Smiriti

Respondent: AOR Prerna Mehta

Click here to read/download Judgment