The Supreme Court on Thursday brought the curtains down on a long-running motor accident compensation battle arising from a tragic late-night crash in Karnataka that claimed two young lives. Sitting in a packed courtroom, the bench refused to interfere with concurrent findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court, holding that the families had failed to prove which vehicle actually caused the accident.
While the atmosphere was heavy with sympathy, the court made it clear that compassion alone cannot replace proof under the law.
Background
The case dates back to the night of August 14, 2013. Sunil Singh, 26, and his friend Shivu, 22, were riding a motorcycle back from Honnali when they met with a fatal accident near Sugur village. Shivu died on the spot. Sunil succumbed to injuries later in hospital.
Read also:- Patna High Court Strikes Down Punishment on Sub-Inspector After Finding 'Deemed Guilt Rule' Unconstitutional, Says Disciplinary Action Was Prejudged
Their families approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Shimoga, blaming a canter lorry allegedly driven rashly and insured with Sai Ram General Insurance. However, the Tribunal dismissed both claims in 2015, saying the families could not establish that the said lorry was involved at all. Appeals before the Karnataka High Court also failed in 2018.
Unwilling to give up, the families moved the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the accident was clearly established and that motor accident cases require only a “balance of probability”, not strict criminal proof. He relied on the FIR, post-mortem reports, police papers and witness statements.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes 2003 Assault Case After Parties Reach Peaceful Settlement
The insurance company, however, countered that proving which vehicle caused the accident is essential, not optional. “Occurrence alone is not enough,” the court was reminded.
After scanning the record, the bench agreed with the lower courts. It noted several weak links in the evidence. The so-called key witnesses admitted they had not seen the accident. Others contradicted themselves under cross-examination. One claim that the driver had casually confessed to strangers struck the Tribunal as unrealistic.
As the bench observed, “Findings recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are concurrent findings of fact, and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases.”
A crucial factor was the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report. The alleged offending lorry showed no damage, a fact the judges said was “wholly inconsistent” with a crash severe enough to kill two people. The vehicle was also traced more than a month after the incident, further weakening the prosecution story.
Read also:- Supreme Court Steps In After 13 Years of Vegetative State: Orders Secondary Medical Board to Review
Decision
Acknowledging the “immeasurable pain” suffered by the families, the Supreme Court nevertheless held that liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must rest on credible evidence, not sympathy. Finding no perversity or legal error in the earlier rulings, the bench dismissed the appeals and upheld the rejection of compensation claims, without any order on costs.
Case Title: Sithara N.S. & Others vs. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 14718–14719 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 281–282 of 2019)
Case Type: Motor Accident Compensation – Civil Appeal (Supreme Court of India)
Decision Date: December 12, 2025
