Mere Chargesheet Not Enough to Establish Motor Vehicles Act Liability

Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc. Vs Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited (Supreme Court of India)

SC refuses to disturb concurrent findings: Mere chargesheet not enough to fasten MV Act liability without proof of vehicle involvement

Supreme Court, in dismissed appeals filed by legal representatives of two deceased victims, upholding concurrent findings of MACT, Shimoga & Karnataka High Court which had rejected compensation claims u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on ground that involvement of alleged offending canter lorry was not proved. While reiterating that standard of proof in motor accident claims is preponderance of probabilities & not proof beyond reasonable doubt, Apex Court held that claimants must still establish occurrence of accident, involvement of specific vehicle & rash or negligent act. Tribunal & High Court had found serious contradictions in evidence of claimants’ witnesses, improbability of alleged confession by driver, absence of vehicle number in complaint, delayed spot mahazar, recovery of vehicle after 1½ months & crucially Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report showing no damage to alleged offending vehicle, inconsistent with fatal collision. SC observed that mere filing of chargesheet cannot be treated as gospel truth & sympathy cannot substitute proof of liability. Finding no perversity or exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 136, Court dismissed appeals with no order as to costs