Preponderance Over Perfection: SC Restores Insurance Liability in MAC

In a landmark ruling that reinforces India’s pro-claimant stance, the Supreme Court of India has reinstated the liability of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance in the tragic motor accident claim of Kuncham Lavanya & Ors. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2025 INSC 452). Delivered on April 7, 2025, the judgment overturned the Telangana High Court’s decision and restored the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s award of ₹33.63 lakhs, underscoring the principle of preponderance of probability over the rigid standards of criminal proof.

What's The Matter?

On March 20, 2011, Mr. K. Yadagiri lost his life when a Hyundai Verna (AP 29 AE 3763) collided with his Bajaj scooter in Hyderabad. The FIR (No. 156/2011) was initially registered against an "unknown vehicle," leaving the bereaved family to fight for justice.

They approached the MACT, claiming ₹23 lakhs in compensation.

The Tribunal not only accepted their plea but awarded ₹33.63 lakhs with interest, holding both the vehicle owner and the insurer jointly liable.

The insurer, however, challenged this outcome in the Telangana High Court, which set aside the MACT’s award. The High Court found the eyewitness testimony unreliable citing a delay in recording the statement and saw no concrete link between the Verna and the accident scene.

This reversal threatened to deny the family the relief they so desperately needed.

What Happened in court?

Undeterred, the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, which took a broader view of justice. The Court reiterated that motor accident claims fall under civil law and require proof by a balance of probabilities, not the beyond reasonable doubt standard reserved for criminal cases. In its analysis, the Court relied on the police charge sheet, a mechanical inspection report showing a bent bumper, and the owner’s tacit admission—his failure to contest the case at any forum—invoking an adverse inference against him.

While the insurer questioned the credibility of delayed eyewitness statements and pointed to alleged contradictions, the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice. Corroboration by official investigations and physical evidence can and should bolster witness accounts, even when recorded belatedly.

Crucially, the Court held that the insurer failed to establish any breach of policy conditions, such as the driver’s disqualification. With no material to displace the presumption of coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer’s liability stood firm.

This ruling carries far-reaching implications.

First, it sends a clear message that witness delays are not fatal when independent records corroborate their accounts.

Second, it reminds parties that silence or non-appearance in litigation can attract adverse inferences, shifting the burden back onto them.

Third, it reaffirms the importance of mechanical reports as vital evidence in hit-and-run and accident cases.

For claimants, meticulous documentation timely FIRs, detailed mechanical inspections, and proactive tribunal engagement remains essential. Insurers, meanwhile, must vigilantly contest claims and substantiate any policy defenses they invoke. Courts are encouraged to prioritize substantive justice over hyper-technicalities, ensuring that families of accident victims receive the relief they deserve.

In balancing legal rigor with humanitarian considerations, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kuncham Lavanya is a triumph for fairness. It underscores that the pursuit of justice need not be hamstrung by perfection when the preponderance of probability provides a clear path to truth.