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 driverrespondent 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 witnesses – No perversity in the appreciation of evidence, nor exceptional circumstances warranting interference with the concurrent findings. [Paras 13-19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.