STATE TIMES NEWS
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said that liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence, and the principles of law cannot be set aside on the grounds of sympathy alone.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, which dismissed the appeals challenging an order of the Karnataka High Court.
The high court had affirmed an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Shimoga, which had dismissed the claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of two persons who had died in a road accident in 2013.
“We are 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,” the apex court said.
It further said, “Liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence”.
The bench said that after scrutinising the evidence, the high court and the tribunal had found that the appellants had failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
It noted that in August 2013, two persons had lost their lives after their motorcycle was allegedly hit by a rashly driven canter lorry.
The legal representatives of both the deceased filed claim petitions before the tribunal. The tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions, after which the petitioners filed appeals before the high court.
The high court had dismissed their appeals, noting the appellants had failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
In its verdict, the top court noted that the tribunal, after meticulously examining the evidence, identified serious infirmities and material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses.
“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 bench said.
Referring to a report of the motor vehicle inspector, the bench said it revealed no damage whatsoever to the alleged offending vehicle.
“We find no perversity in the appreciation of evidence, nor exceptional circumstances warranting interference with these concurrent findings,” the bench said, while dismissing the appeals.