Supreme Court Restores Compensation in Fatal Scooter Accident Case Against Insurance Company
The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant judgment restoring compensation to the family of a scooter rider who died in a road accident, overturning the High Court’s decision that had absolved the insurance company of liability. The case involved complex evidentiary issues regarding the identification of the offending vehicle and credibility of eyewitnesses.
Case Background
The tragic incident occurred on March 20, 2011, when:
- Mr. K. Yadagiri was riding his Bajaj scooter in Hyderabad
- A speeding Hyundai Verna car hit his scooter from behind at HUDA Complex, Tarnaka
- He suffered fatal injuries and died at Gandhi Hospital
- FIR was registered under Section 304A IPC against unknown vehicle
The deceased’s family (appellants) filed a claim for Rs. 23 lakhs before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded Rs. 33.63 lakhs with 7.5% interest. The High Court later set aside this award against the insurance company, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.
Key Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
“The High Court erred in disbelieving the testimony of PW2 solely due to delay in recording his statement…police investigation corroborated his version”
The appellants relied on:
- Two eyewitness accounts (PW2 and PW3)
- Mechanical inspection report showing damage to the Verna car
- Owner’s admission to police about his driver’s involvement
- Precedent that negligence should be decided on preponderance of probabilities
Insurance Company’s Defense:
“PW2 fabricated the entire story…his evidence has no probative value because of its manifest improbability”
The respondent insurance company argued:
- PW2’s 2.5 month delay in reporting was suspicious
- No material evidence (like the alleged chit with registration number) was produced
- Minimal damage to car bumper inconsistent with high-speed collision
- Owner’s non-appearance in proceedings
Court’s Analysis
The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made crucial observations:
On Eyewitness Credibility:
“PW2’s evidence…has to be taken with, if nothing more, at the very least, a pinch of salt”
On Owner’s Conduct:
“The Court is left with no option but to presume that the owner…had no defence to offer”
On Police Investigation:
“The owner telephoned the driver, he confessed to his guilt and was immediately handed over…to the police”
On Insurance Liability:
“The insurance company cannot be said to have been successful in establishing that it was not liable”
Judgment
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the appeal and set aside High Court’s order
- Restored MACT’s compensation award of Rs. 33.63 lakhs with interest
- Clarified judgment won’t affect pending criminal proceedings
The Court balanced evidentiary doubts with the need for substantive justice, particularly noting the owner’s failure to contest claims across three judicial forums.
Petitioner Name: Kuncham Lavanya & Ors..Respondent Name: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr..Judgment By: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, Telangana.Judgment Date: 06-04-2025.Result: allowed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: kuncham-lavanya-&-or-vs-bajaj-allianz-genera-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-04-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Road Accident Cases
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Motor Vehicle Act
See all petitions in Negligence Claims
See all petitions in Hit and Run Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
