The Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed a compensation appeal filed by a family claiming the death of their breadwinner in a road accident. The bench, led by Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria, agreed with the High Court’s findings that the accident itself had not been credibly proved and that the claim suffered from glaring inconsistencies.
Background
The case dates back to June 2014, when Rajamma and her family alleged that the husband of the first appellant died after being struck by a vehicle near Singasandra crossroad in Bengaluru. The Tribunal had earlier believed the family’s version, relying heavily on the testimony of a neighbour, and awarded compensation of ₹16.02 lakh.
The insurance company, Reliance General, challenged this award before the High Court. The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s ruling, concluding that neither the accident nor the vehicle’s involvement had been satisfactorily established. It was this reversal that the family contested before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The apex court took a close look at the testimonies and documents. A central issue was the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR was initially lodged at Hebbogodi Police Station, which had no jurisdiction over the accident site, and only transferred to the Electronic City Traffic Police after 117 days. The judges noted, “If the location of the accident was already known, the FIR should have been filed with the jurisdictional station in the first place.”
The testimony of the key eyewitness, a neighbour (PW2), also came under heavy scrutiny. PW2 claimed she was running a fruit stall near the spot and saw the accident. However, the Court pointed out that no documents were produced to prove she actually had a stall there. Moreover, her statements were inconsistent—she said both that she went to fetch the victim’s daughter during the accident and also that she had noted down the number of the offending vehicle with the daughter. The bench remarked that such contradictions made her testimony unreliable.
Another striking point was the delay and confusion surrounding the discovery of the body. The widow (PW1) stated she was informed by the neighbour and later found her husband’s body abandoned near a lorry stand, far from the accident site. This raised further suspicion in the Court’s mind.
“The preponderance of probabilities, which usually tilts in favour of claimants in motor accident cases, cannot stand when the claim itself appears tainted with falsity,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s decision to reject the compensation claim was justified. It noted that the insurer’s objections were valid, the FIR process was dubious, and the eyewitness testimony could not be trusted. It also recorded that the driver of the alleged vehicle had already been acquitted in the criminal case.
the bench dismissed the family’s appeal.
Case Title: Rajamma & Ors. vs. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5172 of 2025