Mere mention of “Tata Magic” in inquest panchnama or FIR was not sufficient without proof of its identity and insurance connection.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Burden of Proof – Involvement of offending vehicle – Delay in FIR – Evidence insufficient.

The widow and children of the deceased (Dhanji Ram Marekar) sought compensation alleging that the deceased died in an accident involving a Tata Magic (MH-13-B-2719). The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹15,77,000/- with 9% interest. The High Court set aside the award, holding that the involvement of the Tata Magic was not proved.

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision.

Held:

1. In a motor accident claim, the initial burden lies on the claimants to prove the accident and involvement/identity of the offending vehicle, even if on a prima facie basis.

2. A 26-day delay in lodging the FIR, absence of examination of crucial witnesses, inconsistencies in evidence, and lack of clear identification of the vehicle registration number created strong doubts.

3. Mere mention of “Tata Magic” in inquest panchnama or FIR was not sufficient without proof of its identity and insurance connection.

4. Claimants failed to discharge the burden; hence, the insurer’s liability could not be fastened.

Result: Appeal dismissed. Tribunal’s award rightly set aside.2025 INSC 1077

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6794 of 2025

VANITA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

M/S SHRIRAM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Heard Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, learned counsel

appeared on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Meenakshi

Midha, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the

respondent-Insurance Company.

2. The present appeal is directed against judgment of

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at

Aurangabad dated 24.09.2019, whereby the High Court

allowed the appeal of the respondent-insurance company

holding that in the accident in question, the involvement

of the offending vehicle-Tata Magic with registration 

2

number MH-13-B-2719 was not proved, therefore, the

liability to compensate the claimants could not have been

fastened on the insurance company. The appellantsherein are the original claimants.

3. The claimants are the widow and children of

deceased named Dhanji Ram Marekar who had

approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Osmanabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’)

seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of the

accident, which took place on 27.05.2012 at about 6:00

p.m. at Sholapur to Naldurg National Highway, when

Dhanaji Ram Marekar was going to village Lohagaon on

his motorcycle bearing registration number MH-13-U9013.

3.1 The case of the claimant was that when the said

deceased had reached near village Lohagaon, he was

dashed, according to the claimant, by one Tata Magic

bearing registration number MH-13-B-2719 which came

with excessive speed from the opposite direction.

Negligent driving was alleged against the driver of the

said Tata Magic. 

3

3.2 The said Dhanji Ram Marekar sustained serious

injuries and succumbed to death in the hospital. After

applying relevant parameters to assess the

compensation, the Tribunal, allowed M.A.C.P No.112 of

2012 of the claimants as per its judgment and award dated

06.01.2017, directed the insurance company to pay

compensation of Rs.15,77,000/- with 9% interest.

3.3 The insurance-company approached the High

Court calling in question the Tribunal’s judgment and

award and also questioning the liability to pay the

compensation. In the written statement filed by

respondent No.2-insurance company, the factum of

accident was specifically denied. It was denied that Tata

Magic bearing registration number MH-13-B-2719 was

involved or that it is owned by respondent No.1 or that the

same was insured with the insurer. The date, time and

place of the accident were also denied.

3.4 It was the case of the defence that a false offence

was registered against the driver in collusion with the

police. In view of the specific pleading and the defence of 

4

the insurance-company, one of the issues framed by the

High Court was whether the claimants had proved the

involvement of Tata Magic bearing registration number

MH-13-B-2719 in the accident. The outcome of other

issues raised as to whether there was breach of the

insurance policy by respondent No.1 or whether the

claimants were entitled to get the compensation from the

respondents, were to depend upon the finding on the

aspect of involvement of the offending vehicle Tata

Magic.

4. The claimants sought to contend that the finding

of the High Court that the involvement of the Tata Magic

was not proved, was a perverse finding. It was submitted

that the factum of occurrence of the accident ought to

have been accepted on the basis of the say of the

witnesses including the witness Deepak Shendge.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, nonexamination of the witnesses named Mahesh Deshmukh

and Laxman Kamble was not of much importance to

conclude about the non-involvement of the offending

vehicle. It was submitted that the High Court ought to 

5

have considered the issue about involvement of the

vehicle on the footing of preponderance of probabilities.

4.1 On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents highlighted various circumstances set out

by the High Court in its judgment to arrive at a conclusion

that involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident

was not proved and canvassed the correctness of the

impugned judgment of the High Court.

5. This Court considered the submissions asserted

on behalf of the respective parties and carefully went

through the findings recorded by the High Court in light

of the evidence on record in relation to involvement of the

vehicle Tata Magic with registration number MH-13-B2719.

5.1 The High Court has inter alia rested on the

following facts and circumstances to hold that the

appellants-claimants were unable to prove the accident

and death of Dhanji Ram Marekar by involvement of Tata

Magic jeep. 

6

(i) The accident took place on 27.05.2011. The

lodgement of the First Information Report (FIR) was only

on 21.06.2011. In other words, there was a gap of 26 days

between the date of the accident and lodging of the FIR.

(ii) The FIR was lodged by brother of the deceased

named Balaji. His explanation was least inspiring when he

stated that since he was in a state of grief and his mental

condition was not proper, he could not immediately

lodge the FIR.

(iii) Admittedly, the said informant Balaji was not

examined by the claimants to elicit his evidence, for the

reasons best known to the claimants.

(iv) According to said Balaji, upon knowing about

the occurrence of accident, he rushed to the hospital and

knew that one Mahesh Deshmukh and one Laxman

Kamble from his village had brought the deceased to the

hospital.

(v) Nor it is the case that the vehicle number of Tata

Magic was provided to the informant Balaji at any specific

point of time by either the deceased victim or the persons

who brought the victim to the hospital. 

7

(vi) The said Mahesh Deshmukh was also kept out of

witness box. Nor Laxman Kamble was examined. The said

Mahesh Deshmukh was one of the Panchas to the inquest

Panchnama but did not inform anything to the police to

incorporate the vehicle number of Tata Magic.

(vii) Nothing was recorded about the identity of the

Tata Magic in the inquest Panchnama which could have

been done by the said Mahesh Deshmukh who claimed to

be an eye-witness. Nor Mahesh Deshmukh was

examined.

(viii) CW2 suggested that Laxman Kamble

intercepted the jeep Tata Magic and one Mahesh

Deshmukh had come in a bus which was going from

Sholapour to Naldurg and that they had taken Dhanji Ram

Marekar to the hospital. While they gave the motorcycle

number, the Tata Magic registration number was never

provided.

(ix) One Deepak Lokhande (CW2) was examined to

be projected as eye-witness. In his evidence it was

claimed by him that he knew the Tata Magic number, yet

he did not provide the same at any point of time. 

8

He conceded that though he witnessed the accident and

noted the registration number of the offending vehicle; he

never informed the police or even gave a statement

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973.

(x) In the inquest Panchnama prepared on

28.05.2011, it was stated that the deceased died when hit

by the Tata Magic but did not mention the registration

number of the Tata Magic.

(xi) Mere indicating the offending vehicle to be ‘Tata

Magic’ was not sufficient. The identity of the offending

vehicle with particular registration number was required

to be proved.

5.2 Following further aspects deserves to be

highlighted which go to show that there was a dearth of

evidence to prove the involvement of the offending

vehicle as alleged.

(a) The appellant-Vanita (CW1), widow of the

deceased was admittedly not with the deceased at the

time of the accident, therefore, her evidence has nothing 

9

to contribute to suggest or establish the identity of the

offending vehicle.

(b) The accident took place on 27.05.2011 in the

evening at about 6:00 p.m. It was summer season,

therefore, the evening was sufficiently bright with

daylight.

(c) It was possible to sight the identity of the Tata

Magic, claimed to have been involved in the accident and

its registration number. However, none of the alleged

eye-witnesses gave such number in their statements.

(d) The Investigating Officer was not examined by

the claimants. The inquest Panchnama was prepared only

on 28.05.2011.

(e) It is not comprehensible as to why the police

waited for some relative to lodge the report of the

incident and did not do anything for 25 days. Even eyewitnesses did not approach before 21.06.2011.

5.3 All the above evidence, circumstances and

considerations reinforce that the factum of involvement of

the offending vehicle as claimed and asserted by the

claimants was not proved. The claimants failed to 

10

discharge their obligation on this count which was to be

the primary step. Given the above strong evidentiary

considerations, even on the principle of the

preponderance of probabilities, the involvement of Tata

Magic vehicle with registration number MH-13-B-2719

could not be concluded and was not established.

5.4 It was correct on the part of the High Court to

conclude that mere mentioning of Tata Magic by name in

the inquest Panchnama or in the FIR would not be

sufficient to hold that it was the same Tata Magic

belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with

respondent No.2 in absence of its clear identification.

6. It is a settled position of law that in a motor- accident

claim petition, the initial burden to prove the factum of

accident and involvement of offending vehicle lie on the

claimants. It is the claimants who have to discharge this

primary burden by establishing the occurrence of the

accident and the involvement as well as identity of the

vehicle at least on prima facie basis. Only then the onus to

disprove shifts to the other side. 

11

6.1 The High Court, thus, in holding that the

claimant had failed to prove the involvement of the Tata

Magic in the accident or that it was owned by respondent

No.1 or that the same was insured with respondent No.2

committed no error. It has to be held that the liability of

payment of compensation could not be fastened on the

respondent-insurance company. The setting aside of the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal was justified.

7. The appeal stands dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main appeal as

above, all pending interlocutory applications would not

survive and are accordingly disposed of.

………………………………….., J.

[ K. VINOD CHANDRAN ]

………………………………….., J.

[ N.V. ANJARIA ]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 04, 2025.

(VK)