In a setback for a family seeking compensation, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the appeal filed by Rajamma and others against Reliance General Insurance. The case revolved around the alleged death of Rajamma’s husband in a road accident in 2014, which the insurance company disputed as fabricated.
Background
The family had earlier secured a compensation award of ₹16.02 lakh from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They argued that the deceased, the sole breadwinner, had died in a hit-and-run near Singasandra crossroad. The Tribunal believed their neighbour, who claimed to have witnessed the accident, and brushed aside the insurer’s objections.
Read also: Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel, Quashes JSW’s ₹19,350 Crore Resolution Plan
But the High Court overturned that award, citing serious doubts about the FIR’s registration and inconsistencies in the eyewitness account. Rajamma’s family then approached the Supreme Court, hoping to restore the Tribunal’s decision.
Court’s Observations
The bench, comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, examined the matter closely. They noted that the FIR was first lodged in Hebbogodi Police Station, which had no jurisdiction, and was transferred to the correct police station only after 117 days.
“If the accident location was already known, there is no explanation why the FIR was not filed in the proper police station at the first instance,” the judges remarked. This unexplained delay raised doubts about the genuineness of the claim.
The Court also scrutinised the testimony of PW2, the supposed eyewitness. She claimed she saw the accident while running a fruit shop nearby, rushed to call the victim’s daughter, and returned to find both the vehicle and the victim gone. Yet, in the same breath, she said she noted down the vehicle number along with the child. “Such contradictions make her testimony unreliable,” the bench observed.
Read also: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Delhi Couple Accused of ₹6 Crore Land Fraud, Orders Fresh Custody
Adding weight to the doubts, the Court was informed that in the related criminal trial, the driver had already been acquitted, and the same witness failed to identify him in court.
Decision
Concluding that the High Court was right in rejecting the claim, the Supreme Court stated: “We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the appeal.” The civil appeal was dismissed, leaving the family without compensation.
Case: Rajamma & Others v. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5172 of 2025
Judgment Date: 26 September 2025
