SITHARA N.S. & ORS. ETC.versusSAI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

                [2025] 12 S.C.R. 498 : 2025 INSC 1425

                      Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc.
                                 v.
            Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited
                 (Civil Appeal No(s). 14718-14719 of 2025)
                              12 December 2025
           [Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether the High Court erred in law in holding that the
       appellants failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending
       vehicle.

                                   Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Compensation – Claim
       of – Case of legal heirs of the deceased that the said victims
       met with an accident resulting in their death due to rash
       and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver-
       respondent no.1 – Claim petition by the LR’s – Both the tribunal
       and the High Court dismissed the claim petitions holding that
       the legal heirs failed to prove the involvement of the offending
       vehicle in the alleged accident – Correctness:
       Held: In cases of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof
       required is that of preponderance of probabilities – Absence
       of vehicle registration number in the FIR or complaint lodged
       immediately after the accident is not, by itself, fatal to the claim –
       FIR not an encyclopedia and omissions at the initial stage may not
       be determinative – However, claimants must establish the specific
       identity of the vehicle/driver, with the caveat that the connection
       of the accident with the said vehicle must be established through
       cogent and reliable evidence – However, the omission of the vehicle
       registration number in the complaint cannot be viewed in isolation,
       but in conjunction with other infirmities in the evidence – Pain of
       losing young lives in their prime is immeasurable – However, the
       principles of law cannot be set aside on the grounds of sympathy
       alone – Liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established
       through credible evidence – Courts below found, after scrutinizing
       the evidence, that the appellants failed to prove the involvement
       of the offending vehicle driven by respondent no.1 and serious
       infirmities and material contradictions in the testimonies of the
* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                         499

                      Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc. v.
             Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited

     witnesses – No perversity in the appreciation of evidence, nor
     exceptional circumstances warranting interference with the
     concurrent findings. [Paras 13-19]

                             Case Law Cited
     Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur [2014] 13 SCR 735 :
     (2015) 2 SCC 410 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

                            List of Keywords
     Involvement of the offending vehicle; Compensation; Rash and
     negligent driving; Motor vehicle accidents; Preponderance of
     probabilities; Contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses;
     Omission of the vehicle registration number.

                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 14718-
     14719 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2018 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA Nos. 5891 and 5892 of 2015

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv., Manish Tiwari, Mrs. Thashmitha
     Muthanna, Ranjit Kotian, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, M/s Devasa & Co.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Kshitij Mittal, Anand Sukumar.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   These Appeals call in question the common impugned judgment dated
     07.06.2018 in MFA Nos.5891/2015 and 5892/2015 (MV) passed by
500                                                                                [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


       the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the High Court
       dismissed the appeals preferred by the present appellants, who are
       the legal representatives of both the deceased, affirming the order
       dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII,
       at Shimoga, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions filed
       by the present appellants.

       FACTUAL MATRIX
3.     On 14.08.2013, Sunil Singh and his friend, Shivu, were returning
       from Honnali on their motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-14-
       ED-9828. At around 11.30 p.m., when they were proximate to Sugur
       village, respondent No.11 allegedly drove a canter lorry, bearing
       Registration No. KA-20-AA-6786, in a rash and negligent manner
       dashing against their motorcycle. This led to the death of Shivu on
       the spot and Sunil subsequently succumbing to his injuries in the
       hospital. The legal representatives of both the deceased filed two
       separate claim petitions before the Tribunal. M.V.C No.1155/2013
       was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Sunil Singh and
       M.V.C No.1156/2013 was preferred by the legal representatives of
       deceased Shivu. The Tribunal after careful consideration dismissed
       both the claim petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the legal representatives/
       appellants preferred their respective appeals before the High Court,
       which were also dismissed, noting that the appellants had failed to
       prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident.

       SUBMISSIONS
4.     Learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contended
       that the accident on 14.08.2013 resulting in the death of Sunil
       Singh aged 26 years and Shivu aged 22 years stands proved on
       preponderance of probabilities. He relied upon FIR No.277/2013,
       post-mortem reports confirming the death due to haemorrhage from
       multiple injuries, chargesheet filed against driver of the offending
       vehicle (respondent No.1) and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4.
5.     He further contended that the Courts below erred in applying the
       standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt instead of preponderance


1    Vide order dated 02.11.2023, SLPs stood closed against respondent Nos.1 (Driver) and 2 (Owner) of
     the offending vehicle for non-prosecution. Hence, they were deleted from array of the parties. The only
     subsisting party is respondent No.3/Sai Ram General lnsurance Company Limited.
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                         501

                      Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc. v.
             Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited

     of probabilities, and contended that the Courts below committed error
     in rejecting the claim petitions on technical grounds.
6.   Strong reliance was placed on the spot mahazar, recovery
     panchanamas and inquest mahazars conducted by the Police during
     investigation. These documents conclusively prove the place of
     accident and establish rash and negligent driving on the part of the
     driver (respondent No.1). It was further submitted that the driver and
     the owner of the offending vehicle, despite filing written objections,
     did not deny the occurrence of the accident and failed to lead any
     rebuttal evidence to controvert the factum of the accident or the
     negligence of the driver (respondent No.1).
7.   Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Sai Ram General
     lnsurance Company Limited submitted that proving the involvement
     of the vehicle and the rash and negligent act is sine qua non for
     maintainability of petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
     Act, 1988. It was contended that both the Courts below concurrently
     held that no evidence exists to show the involvement of the alleged
     offending vehicle in the accident.
8.   It was argued that the appellants must prove three elements under
     Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in order to establish
     their claim: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the vehicle;
     and (iii) rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle. In the instant
     case, only the occurrence is proved, neither involvement nor rash
     and negligent act have been established.
9.   It was submitted that mere filing of chargesheet should not be treated
     as gospel truth and should only be one factor in preponderance of
     probability, not the only factor. It was also pointed out that the report
     dated 05.10.2013 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector does not support
     the appellants’ case.
10. It was further contended that apart from the chargesheet regarding a
    vehicle recovered after one and a half months after the accident, no
    evidence exists to establish the involvement of the alleged offending
    vehicle.

     ANALYSIS
11. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
    learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned
502                                                       [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


       judgment. While the occurrence of a tragic accident resulting in
       the untimely demise of two young individuals, Sunil Singh aged 26
       years and Shivu aged 22 years, is undisputed, the question that
       falls for our consideration is whether the High Court has erred in
       law in holding that the appellants failed to prove the involvement of
       the alleged offending vehicle.
12. At the outset, we may observe that the findings recorded by the
    Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are concurrent findings of
    fact. This Court in Collector Singh vs. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur2
    observed that “Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
    India is extraordinary and interference with the concurrent findings of
    fact recorded by the courts below is permissible only in exceptional
    cases and not as a matter of course.” It was further observed that
    this Court may interfere with such concurrent findings where the
    appreciation of evidence is found to be wholly unsatisfactory or the
    conclusion drawn from the same is perverse in nature.
13. A perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal, after meticulously
    examining the evidence, identified serious infirmities and material
    contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. The Tribunal
    recorded that P.W.1 (Parashuram Singh), who is appellant No.2 in the
    first Appeal, presented a self-contradictory testimony. He claimed on
    one hand to have learnt about the accident from the Police, while on
    the other stating that he came to know about it from the witnesses.
    He admitted in cross-examination that he is a complete stranger
    to P.W.3 (Lokesh) and P.W.4 (Ravi), the alleged witnesses to the
    incident. He further admitted that neither he nor his children were
    present at the time of the accident and that he did not visit the spot.
14. P.W.2 (Parmesh), who is appellant No.1 in the second Appeal,
    admitted that he did not witness the accident himself and had
    no specific information that the alleged canter lorry was involved,
    stating this only on the basis of what the Police told him. The High
    Court, in the impugned judgment, concurred with these findings and
    observed that both, P.W.1 and P.W.2, being the star witnesses of the
    appellants, were unsure as to how the accident occurred and were
    equally unsure about the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle.



2   (2015) 2 SCC 410 (Para 9)
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                       503

                      Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc. v.
             Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited

15. The Tribunal observed that the testimony of P.W.3 (Lokesh) and
    P.W.4 (Ravi), claiming that respondent No.1 voluntarily approached
    them and confessed to causing the accident while revealing the
    registration numbers of both vehicles, is inherently improbable and
    contrary to normal human conduct. The Tribunal noted that both
    witnesses materially contradicted their examination-in-chief during
    cross-examination, with P.W.3 admitting he did not know who caused
    the accident and P.W.4 admitting he did not know which vehicle was
    involved. We find that these findings of fact are based on proper
    appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity.
16. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that in cases
    of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof required is that
    of preponderance of probabilities. It is also well settled that the
    absence of vehicle registration number in the FIR or complaint lodged
    immediately after the accident is not, by itself, fatal to the claim. An
    FIR is not an encyclopedia and omissions at the initial stage may not
    be determinative. However, the claimants must establish the specific
    identity of the vehicle/driver, with the caveat that the connection of
    the accident with the said vehicle must be established through cogent
    and reliable evidence.
17. However, in the present case, the omission of the vehicle registration
    number in the complaint cannot be viewed in isolation, but in
    conjunction with other infirmities in the evidence. The complaint
    merely states that a vehicular accident occurred without identifying
    the offending vehicle. The spot mahazar was admittedly prepared
    several days after the accident. In absence of any eyewitness to the
    accident, there is nothing to indicate the basis upon which it was
    drawn up or whose statement formed its foundation.
18. Most significantly, the report dated 05.10.2013 of the Motor Vehicle
    Inspector reveals no damage whatsoever to the alleged offending
    vehicle. A circumstance that is wholly inconsistent with a collision
    of such severity as to cause the death of two persons. This report
    provides no basis for the claim, and the fact that the chargesheet
    filed after the vehicle was recovered one and a half months post-
    accident raises concerns about the reliability of the evidence.
19. We are deeply conscious of the tragic loss suffered by the families
    of the deceased. The pain of losing young lives in their prime
    is immeasurable. However, the principles of law cannot be set
504                                                      [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       aside on the grounds of sympathy alone. Liability under the Motor
       Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence. The
       Courts below have found, after scrutinizing the evidence, that the
       appellants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle
       driven by respondent No.1. We find no perversity in the appreciation
       of evidence, nor exceptional circumstances warranting interference
       with these concurrent findings.
20. Thus, the present Appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed. No
    orders as to costs.

       Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain