Supreme Court: Initially Recording Offending Vehicle In Motor Accident Cases As ‘Unknown' In FIR Not Fatal To Claimant's Case

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah remarked, “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.”

Advocate Vikas Arora represented the Appellants, while AOR Siddharth appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The motor accident that occurred in 2011, where the deceased was riding his scooter and was hit by a car and later succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was registered under Section 304A of the IPC.

The Appellants, the widow and children of the deceased, filed a Petition before the MACT, claiming compensation, which was allowed.

However, the insurance company filed an Appeal before the High Court, arguing that the registration number of the offending vehicle was unknown when the FIR was lodged. The High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the award concerning the insurance company, questioning the reliability of an eye-witness's testimony.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court explained, “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.”

"However, since an FIR is not expected to be encyclopaedic 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," the Bench remarked.

“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,” the Bench held.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Kuncham Lavanya & Ors. v. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 452)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Mohit Paul; Advocates Vikas Arora, Rangoli Seth, Obhirup Ghosh, Sanjleena Lal and Rohit

Respondents: AOR Siddharth; Advocates Prateek Goyal and Harshit Manwani

Click here to read/download the Judgment