Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1425
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.14718-14719 OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS.281-282/2019)
SITHARA N.S. & ORS. ETC. …. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SAI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
…. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
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 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
At around 11.30 p.m., when they were proximate to Sugur village,
Date: 2025.12.12
16:53:15 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 1 of 7
1
respondent No.1 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 of
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.
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 2 of 7
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.
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 3 of 7
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 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.
2
This Court in Collector Singh vs. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur observed that
“ J urisdiction 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
2
(2015) 2 SCC 410 (Para 9)
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 4 of 7
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.
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
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 5 of 7
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
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 6 of 7
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 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.
…………………..........................J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
.………………............................J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 12, 2025.
CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 7 of 7