Liability under the Motor Vehicles Act can’t be decided on the grounds of sympathy alone but must be established by credible evidence – SC
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that 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.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4929 (2025) (12) abcaus.in SC
In the instant case, the deceased aged 26 years and aged 22 years were friend who were returning on their motorcycle when they were hit by a canter lorry run in a rash and negligent manner dashing against their motorcycle leading to their death.
The legal representatives of both deceased filed two separate claim petitions before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal 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.
Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Legal Representatives (the appellants) submitted that accident resulting in the death of both friends stood proved on preponderance of probabilities.
The appellants relied on FIR, post-mortem reports confirming the death due to haemorrhage from multiple injuries, chargesheet filed against driver of the offending vehicle and the oral evidence of prosecution’s witnesses.
It was contended that Courts below erred in applying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt instead of preponderance of probabilities, and in rejecting the claim petitions on technical grounds.
It was also 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.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal, after meticulously examining the evidence, identified serious infirmities and material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. The Tribunal recorded that PW1 (one of the appellants) presented a self-contradictory testimony regarding how he came to know about the accident. He admitted that he was not present at the time of the accident and that he did not visit the spot.
Similarly PW2 (the appellant) 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, Prosecution’s Witnesses 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.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed that the settled legal position is that in cases of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities. However, 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.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that 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 stated 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 was nothing to indicate the basis upon which it was drawn up or whose statement formed its foundation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that Most significantly, the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector revealed no damage whatsoever to the alleged offending vehicle which is wholly inconsistent with a collision of such severity as to cause the death of two persons.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that their Lordships were 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.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no perversity in the appreciation of evidence, nor exceptional circumstances warranting interference with these concurrent findings of both Tribunal and High Court.
As a result, the appeals was dismissed as lacking merit.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Liability under MV Act can’t be decided on the grounds of sympathy alone – Supreme Court
- ICAI notifies dates of CA Foundation, Intermediate & Final Exams May 2026
- Interest u/s 234A can’t be levied on self-assessment tax paid before due date of filing ITR
- SEBI defers timeline for implementation of Phase III of Nomination
- RBI revises directions on opening & Maintenance of CC, CA & OD by Banks
