Legal provisions involved: Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Judgement by: Supreme Court

Judge/Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjay Karol

Facts

On August 14, 2013, Sunil Singh (26) and Shivu (22) died in a motorcycle accident. The claimants said a Canter lorry caused the accident due to rash driving. They filed compensation claims in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which were dismissed as they failed to prove the lorry’s involvement. The High Court of Karnataka confirmed this decision. The legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key legal provisions

Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Issues raised

Whether a claim succeeds without proof of the vehicle’s involvement? Can sympathy influence liability under the law?

Arguments of the case

The claimant argued that the court should consider the suffering caused, even without clear evidence. The respondent said that liability under the MV Act must be based on proof, not sympathy. Claimants relied on witness statements, FIRs, mahazars, and chargesheets. The insurer argued the evidence was weak, contradictory, and unreliable.

Judgement

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Sympathy for the families cannot replace evidence. The witnesses were inconsistent, the vehicle showed no damage, and evidence was delayed. To claim compensation, it is essential to prove clearly that a specific vehicle caused the accident.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.