FIR Delay - The Legal Chamber

Inconsistent Evidence Leads to Claim Rejection, Rules Supreme Court in Reliance Insurance Case

22Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Inconsistent Evidence Leads to Claim Rejection, Rules Supreme Court in Reliance Insurance Case

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that a claim petition under motor accident law must be established on a preponderance of probability. However, this standard is not met when the foundational evidence, including the FIR and eyewitness testimony, is found to be unreliable, unsubstantiated, and creates valid suspicion regarding the occurrence of the accident itself. Facts Of The Case: On June 18, 2014, the deceased, husband of the first appellant, was allegedly involved in a hit-and-run road accident at Singasandra crossroad. The accident was claimed to be witnessed by PW2, a neighbour, who testified that the driver of the offending vehicle abandoned the victim's body after promising to take him to a hospital. The wife of the deceased (PW1) was informed by P...

Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout Despite FIR Delay : Justice for Victim’s Family

The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court's decision, ruling that the delay in FIR registration and minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony did not disprove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The Court upheld the Tribunal's compensation award, emphasizing that the insurer failed to examine the investigating officer to challenge the evidence. The judgment reinforced the principle that technicalities should not override substantive justice in motor accident claims. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a motor accident where the deceased, a school peon, died after his motorcycle collided with a speeding vehicle. His wife and three minor children filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded them compensation of ₹46,29,15...

Affidavits & Fair Trial: Why the Supreme Court Overturned a Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4's testimony given the suppressed material. Facts Of The Case: Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I...