Sithara N.S. & Others vs Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited

2025 INSC 1425 REPORTABLE

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 …. RESPONDENTS COMPANY LIMITED

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 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

At around 11.30 p.m., when they were proximate to Sugur village, Digitally signed by NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2025.12.12 16:53:15 IST Reason: CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (C) NOS.281-282/2019 Page 1 of 7 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 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.

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

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