LexSITHARA N.S. & ORS. ETC. versus SAI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.