Vanita vs Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd 2025 INSC 1077 - Motor Accident Compensation
Motor Accident Compensation - 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. [SC held 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 and insured with respondent No.2 in absence of its clear identification ] (Para 5-6)
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: Vanita & Ors. v. M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1077.
- Coram: K. Vinod Chandran, J.; N.V. Anjaria, J.
- Judgment date: September 04, 2025.
Caselaws and citations
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 161 referenced for witness statements.
- The judgment does not cite specific precedents by name; it reiterates the settled principle that in motor accident claims the claimant bears the initial burden to prove the accident and involvement/identity of the offending vehicle, after which the onus may shift.
Statutes/laws referred
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Implicitly governing motor accident claims and insurer liability.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 161 (statement to police) explicitly mentioned.