Can an FIR Registered at a Non-Jurisdictional Station and Uncorroborated Chance-Witness Testimony Sustain a Hit-and-Run Claim under the Motor Vehicles Act?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Strict scrutiny applies to “chance witnesses” who lack documentary proof of their connection to the scene (e.g., business licence, school records).
• FIRs must be registered at the correct police station or satisfactorily explained if delayed or lodged elsewhere; unexplained jurisdictional defects can fatally weaken a claim.
• Typographical errors in FIR time entries may be excused, but jurisdictional and procedural flaws are not.
• Contradictions within eyewitness testimony (e.g., noting a vehicle number versus claiming the vehicle had vanished) severely undermine credibility.
• Even in hit-and-run cases, preponderance of probabilities—not merely the existence of an FIR—determines entitlement to compensation.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdictional Validity of FIR
   An FIR in motor accident claims must be registered at the police station having jurisdiction over the accident site or abandoned-body location. The unexplained registration at Hebbagodi Police Station and 117-day transfer detracted from its probative force.
2. Standard of Proof: Preponderance of Probabilities
   Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act requires satisfaction on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Credibility of Chance Witness (PW2)
   PW2’s status as a “chance witness” operating an unverified wayside fruit shop demanded strict scrutiny. Her own testimony was self-contradictory: she claimed to note the vehicle number yet also said both victim and vehicle had disappeared when she returned with the victim’s daughter.
4. Rejection of Insurance Company’s Objections
   While the tribunal faulted the insurer for not examining the vehicle driver, credibility and procedural defects in the claimant’s evidence alone justified denying relief.
5. Final Non-Interference
   High Court’s detailed findings on credibility and FIR were concurred with by the Supreme Court, and the appeal was dismissed.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• The accident was an uncontradicted hit-and-run, witnessed by PW2.
• Delay and transfer of FIR registration were due to the initial lodging at an out-of-jurisdiction station, not mala fide.
• The insurer failed to produce any rebuttal eyewitness or driver testimony.

Respondent

• The FIR was invalid: registered at a non-jurisdictional station and transferred only after 117 days.
• PW2 was a “chance witness” without documentary proof of her shop or corroboration.
• Contradictions in PW2’s testimony render her account unreliable; the driver was never identified.

Factual Background

The claimants sought compensation after the sole breadwinner died in an alleged hit-and-run accident on 18 June 2014. PW2 claimed to witness the crash near Singasandra, and PW1 (the widow) later located her husband’s body abandoned at a distant spot. An FIR was lodged one day later at Hebbagodi Police Station, then transferred after 117 days to the correct jurisdiction. The tribunal accepted PW2’s testimony and awarded ₹16,02,000, but the High Court reversed, finding the FIR defective and PW2’s account untrustworthy. The insurer produced an acquittal of the driver in criminal proceedings.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed