Motor Vehicle compensation : Involvement of the offending vehicle must be established through reliable evidence

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Motor Accident Claims Due to Lack of Credible Evidence. Apex Court Affirms High Court and Tribunal's Findings on Insufficient Proof of Vehicle Involvement in Fatal Accident

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed the appeals in the case of Sithara N.S. and others versus Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited, confirming the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Shimoga. The appellants, representing the deceased Sunil Singh and Shivu, sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for a tragic accident that claimed the lives of the two young men. The apex court's judgment reinforces the necessity of establishing claims based on the preponderance of probabilities with credible evidence.

The case stemmed from a motor accident on August 14, 2013, involving Sunil Singh and Shivu, who were allegedly struck by a canter lorry driven negligently by the respondent's driver. Despite filing claims and appeals, the appellants failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle, leading to the dismissal of their petitions by the lower courts.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized the need for claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to prove the occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the vehicle, and rash and negligent driving. The court noted that while the accident's occurrence was undisputed, the involvement of the alleged vehicle and the negligence of its driver were not substantiated by reliable evidence.

The Tribunal and High Court had found serious contradictions and improbabilities in the testimonies of the appellants' witnesses, and the absence of direct evidence or a credible basis for the vehicle's involvement. The Supreme Court observed that the appellants failed to overcome these deficiencies, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts did not warrant interference.

Addressing the appellants' arguments, the court clarified that the standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. However, the absence of the vehicle's registration number in initial complaints and inconsistencies in witness statements undermined the appellants' case. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, which showed no damage to the alleged offending vehicle, further weakened their claims.

The judgment highlights the necessity for claimants to provide cogent evidence linking the vehicle to the accident, despite the inherent sympathies in tragic cases. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the balance between legal principles and emotional considerations, affirming that liability must be established through credible evidence.

This case serves as a crucial reminder for claimants in motor accident cases to ensure comprehensive and consistent evidence to substantiate their claims for compensation.

Bottom Line:

Claims for compensation in motor accident cases must be proven on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, and the involvement of the offending vehicle must be established through cogent and reliable evidence.

Statutory provision(s):Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2821397