In motor vehicle accident claims, establishing the vehicle's involvement and negligent act is essential; mere allegations without credible evidence cannot sustain a claim.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These Appeals call in question the common impugned judgment dated 07.06.2018 in MFA Nos.5891/2015 and 5892/2015 (MV) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the present appellants, who are the legal representatives of both the deceased, affirming the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, at Shimoga, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions filed by the present appellants.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3) On 14.08.2013, Sunil Singh and his friend, Shivu, were returning from Honnali on their motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-14-ED-9828. At around 11.30 p.m., when they were proximate to Sugur village, respondent No.1¹[Vide order dated 02.11.2023, SLPs stood closed against respondent Nos.1 (Driver) and 2 (Owner) of the offending vehicle for non-prosecution. Hence, they were deleted from array of the parties. The only subsisting party is respondent No.3/Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited.] allegedly drove a canter lorry, bearing Registration No. KA- 20-AA-6786, in a rash and negligent manner dashing against their motorcycle. This led to the death of Shivu on the spot and Sunil subsequently succumbing to his injuries in the hospital. The legal representatives of both the deceased filed two separate claim petitions before the Tribunal. M.V.C No.1155/2013 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Sunil Singh and M.V.C No.1156/2013 was preferred by the legal representatives of deceased Shivu. The Tribunal after careful consideration 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.

SUBMISSIONS

4) Learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the accident on 14.08.2013 resulting in the death of Sunil Singh aged 26 years and Shivu aged 22 years stands proved on preponderance of probabilities. He relied upon FIR No.277/2013, post-mortem reports confirming the death due to haemorrhage from multiple injuries, chargesheet filed against driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1) and the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4.

5) He further contended that the Courts below erred in applying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt instead of preponderance of probabilities, and contended that the Courts below committed error in rejecting the claim petitions on technical grounds.

6) Strong reliance was placed on the spot mahazar, recovery panchanamas and inquest mahazars conducted by the Police during investigation. These documents conclusively prove the place of accident and establish rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver (respondent No.1). It was further 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 (respondent No.1).

7) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited submitted that proving the involvement of the vehicle and the rash and negligent act is sine qua non for maintainability of petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. It was contended that both the Courts below concurrently held that no evidence exists to show the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident.

8) It was argued that the appellants must prove three elements un