The Supreme Court has upheld the orders of the courts below rejecting motor accident compensation claims arising out of the death of two young men in a road accident in Karnataka, holding that liability under the Motor Vehicles Act can arise only when the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and the negligence of the driver are proved through credible evidence.
While expressing complete empathy with the families of the deceased, the Court observed that the pain of losing young lives in their prime is immeasurable. However, it categorically held that “the principles of law cannot be set aside on the grounds of sympathy alone”, and in the absence of cogent proof, a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be sustained.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjay Karol, dismissing the appeals filed by Sithara N.S. & Ors. etc.
The case pertained to a road accident that occurred on the night of 14 August 2013, in which motorcycle riders Sunil Singh (26) and Shivu (22) allegedly died after being hit by a canter lorry. The legal representatives of the deceased had filed claim petitions seeking compensation. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claims on the ground that the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle was not proved. The High Court affirmed this finding.
Referring to the decision in Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur, the Supreme Court reiterated that “Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is extraordinary, and interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by 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.”
In the instant case, the Supreme Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the premature deaths of two young men, it was essential to establish that the specific vehicle in question was involved in the accident and that it was the cause of the fatalities.
Reiterating well-settled legal principles, the Bench observed that in motor vehicle accident cases, the standard of proof required is that of “preponderance of probabilities”. It also reiterated that the absence of a vehicle registration number in the FIR or complaint lodged immediately after the accident is not, by itself, fatal to a claim, as “An FIR is not an encyclopedia and omissions at the initial stage may not be determinative.” Nevertheless, the claimants are required to establish the specific identity of the vehicle and driver, and also prove the nexus between the accident and the said vehicle through cogent and reliable evidence.
The Court took note of serious contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses, the absence of the vehicle number in the FIR, the preparation of the spot mahazar several days after the accident, and most importantly, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, which revealed no damage whatsoever to the alleged offending canter lorry.
Emphasising the significance of this aspect, the Court observed that “……….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 charge-sheet filed after the vehicle was recovered one and a half months post-accident raises concerns about the reliability of the evidence.”
The Supreme Court also clarified that a charge-sheet cannot be treated as conclusive proof and must be examined along with other evidence. The delayed recovery of the vehicle further weakened the prosecution case.
On a comprehensive appraisal of the record, the Court found that the Tribunal had meticulously examined the evidence and rightly identified serious infirmities and material contradictions in the witnesses’ testimonies. Finding no perversity in the appreciation of evidence and no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 136, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, without any order as to costs.
Case: Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc. vs Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited
