Chance Witness Whose Presence Was Not Proven, Testimony Contradictory: Supreme Court Dismisses Motor Accident Claim for Lack of Credibility

“When the only eyewitness fails to establish her presence and her version suffers serious contradictions, the claim cannot succeed on mere preponderance of probabilities” – Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court of India upheld the Karnataka High Court's judgment rejecting a motor accident compensation claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The apex court concurred with the High Court's findings that the claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the only eyewitness presented by the appellants was neither credible nor trustworthy. The Court emphasized that although motor accident claims are adjudicated on the touchstone of "preponderance of probabilities", that standard still requires minimal credible evidence, which was absent in the present case.

High Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Reversed by High Court on Grounds of Fabrication and Doubtful Witness

The claim arose from an alleged hit-and-run incident involving the deceased, husband of the first appellant. According to the appellants, the accident occurred on 18th June 2014 at Singasandra Crossroad, and was purportedly witnessed by a neighbour (PW2), who claimed to have been running a fruit stall near the scene. PW2 informed the deceased’s wife (PW1), who later found the body at a distant location and registered an FIR.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had accepted the version of the appellants and awarded Rs. 16.02 lakhs as compensation, holding that the Insurance Company failed to rebut the evidence, and did not produce the driver to contest the allegations.

However, the High Court reversed the Tribunal’s award, concluding that the accident itself and the involvement of the offending vehicle were not proven, citing serious inconsistencies in the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW2), delay and jurisdictional defect in the FIR, and the eventual acquittal of the accused driver in the criminal trial.

“Preponderance of Probabilities Does Not Mean Acceptance of a False or Contradictory Claim”

SC Scrutinizes Eyewitness Account and Finds Her a “Chance Witness” Without Any Supporting Proof

The bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants, strongly agreeing with the High Court’s observation that PW2, the only eyewitness, was a “chance witness” who failed to inspire any trust.

PW2 claimed that she operated a fruit stall near the accident spot, but produced no documentary evidence, such as a municipal license, to support her presence there. The Court noted that “in the absence of any such proof, her presence at the scene of occurrence is wholly uncorroborated and suspicious.”

Moreover, her account of events was found internally inconsistent. She stated that upon seeing the accident, she rushed to inform the victim’s daughter from a nearby school and returned with her — only to find the victim and vehicle missing. Yet in the same testimony, she claimed that she and the daughter noted the vehicle number, a contradiction the Court termed "fatal to her credibility".

The Court noted, “Such conflicting versions render the testimony wholly unreliable. The non-examination of the daughter further weakens the case.”

"FIR Lodged at Wrong Police Station, Delayed by 117 Days: No Justification Provided"

The Court expressed serious concern over the manner in which the FIR was lodged. Although the appellants claimed the accident occurred at Singasandra Crossroad, the FIR was initially registered at Hebbogodi Police Station, which lacked jurisdiction, and was transferred to the appropriate Electronic City Traffic Police Station after a delay of 117 days.

The bench was particularly critical of the absence of any explanation for this jurisdictional error, observing:

“If PW1 was informed of the location of the accident by PW2, the appropriate jurisdiction was known. The FIR should have been lodged at the proper police station from the outset. The delay and the incorrect jurisdiction cast serious doubts on the veracity of the claim.”

The Court also noted that no police officials were examined to clarify the reason for this procedural lapse, further weakening the appellants’ case.

Claimants Failed to Discharge Burden of Proof Even Under Civil Standard

The apex court reiterated the well-settled principle that motor accident claims are adjudicated on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not strict proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, it clarified that this standard does not excuse a party from establishing the foundational facts of the claim:

“Even under the lenient standard of preponderance, the burden lies on the claimant to produce minimally reliable and coherent evidence. Where suspicion is created by delay, contradictions, and lack of corroboration, the benefit of the doubt cannot be extended to the claimant.”

In this context, the Court also highlighted that in the criminal trial, the driver was acquitted, and PW2 failed to identify him, which corroborated the High Court's doubts about the incident and the vehicle’s involvement.

No Compensation Due, Appeal Dismissed

Concluding that the claimants failed to prove the occurrence of the accident involving the alleged vehicle, and the eyewitness was not reliable, the Court held:

“We find absolutely no reason to interfere in the appeal and the same is dismissed.”

The pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 26th September 2025