Daily Digest

Supreme Court Daily Digest [12 December 2025]

CaseCiter

12 Dec 2025 • 8 min read

Sithara N.S. vs Sai Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.; 2025 INSC 1425 - Motor Accident Compensation - Absence Of Vehicle Registration Number

Motor Accident Compensation - In cases of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities- The absence of vehicle registration number in the FIR or complaint lodged immediately after the accident is not, by itself, fatal to the claim. 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. (Para 16) [Context: In this case, Supreme Court dismissed Claimant's appeal and observed: the omission of the vehicle registration number in the complaint cannot be viewed in isolation, but in conjunction with other infirmities in the evidence. The complaint merely states that a vehicular accident occurred without identifying the offending vehicle. The spot mahazar was admittedly prepared several days after the accident. In absence of any eyewitness to the accident, there is nothing to indicate the basis upon which it was drawn up or whose statement formed its foundation - 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.]

Radha Thevannoor v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 INSC 1424

Motor Accident Compensation - High Court found contributory negligence of 50% on the deceased-driver of the car - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: We find absolutely no reason for the High Court to have found contributory negligence on mere surmises and conjectures.

Director of Town Panchayat v. M. Jayabal 2025 INSC 1423 - Compassionate Appointment - Negative Discrimination - Delay

Compassionate Appointment - The dependent of a deceased employee, though eligible, is not entitled to appointment at any position on compassionate basis as a matter of right. Such appointments, made on purely humanitarian grounds, have to be viewed as exceptions to the general rules of appointment. It is important to note that mere eligibility of the applicant cannot be reason enough to materialise his/her claim for appointment on a higher post. Once a family member of the deceased employee is offered appointment on compassionate basis, the purpose stands well served. (Para 7.3) once the right of an applicant to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further consideration is warranted. Once dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised. Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment on a higher post. (Para 10) compassionate appointment is a relief against immense financial hardship caused by the sudden and unforeseen loss of the earning member of a family. In such event, when a dependant family member of the deceased employee is provided appointment on compassionate basis, it is done in order to ensure that the family members are not subjected to impoverishment. Therefore, such appointment which is arising out of exceptional circumstances, cannot be used as a ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/she is eligible for such post. (Para 12) For consideration of an application for appointment on compassionate basis, financial status of the family is also a relevant factor. It is not a matter of selection or choice of an applicant for such a post, rather for the employer to consider various factors. (Para 21)

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Delay in filing of writ petition before the High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party. This principle is more applicable in the cases of compassionate appointments. The idea behind compassionate appointment is to take care of immediate financial crisis in the family of the deceased employee. In such case, the delay would mean that the family could survive even after death of the employee, as they may be having another source of income. In such circumstances, the party approaching the court with a significant delay can be denied the relief. (Para 15)

Constitution of India - Article 14- No one can approach the court and base his claim on negative discrimination merely because some relief has been granted to a person who may not be entitled to the same - the foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element of negative discrimination. An illegality committed by an authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly placed persons -Illegal orders, passed in case of similarly situated person, will not confer any right upon the other person to come to the court and enforce the same claiming discrimination. Such plea cannot be accepted as the authorities cannot be directed to perpetuate the wrong committed by them. The party in such cases may have different remedies. (Para 16-19)

Jeyasingh v. State 2025 INSC 1422 - S.304 IPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 304 - It applies only when there is commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and when the said Act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. [Context: In this case, allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: The death occurred owing to a forest fire which is in the nature of a vis majeure, therefore, the said Section does not apply to the facts of the case]

Rajjan Lal @ Rajanu v. State of Uttar Pradesh -2025 INSC 1421 - S.319 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is a suo motu power conferred on the Court, which though could be invoked by the complainant, it would depend upon the satisfaction of the Court based on the evidence led at the time of trial - It cannot be lightly invoked on the mere accusation made by the complainant. (Para 7)

Yashwant Krishna Kumbar vs Divisional Manager United India - Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence - Pillion Rider

Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence - The principle of contributory negligence, however, mandates a specific inquiry into the conduct of the injured person and as to how he has contributed his negligence to the accident, and it cannot be inferred vicariously from the conduct of the rider. Even if the riders of both motorcycles are assumed to have been negligent, the present case would fall within the realm of composite negligence, the claimant being a third-party passenger cannot be held to be responsible or having contributed to the accident - In such circumstances, the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from any one of the tortfeasors, and there is no legal warrant for reducing the award on account of apportionment between the riders - In cases where contributory negligence is sought to be attributed to a pillion rider in a motor vehicle accident, the burden squarely lies on the party alleging such negligence to establish, by cogent material, that any act or omission on the part of the pillion rider contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the absence of such proof, no finding of contributory negligence can be sustained against a pillion rider. (Para 14-17)

Composite and Contributory Negligence - Quoted from T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan: 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.(Para 15)

Motor Accident Compensation - In the absence of documentary proof, income must be assessed on the basis of prevailing economic conditions, nature of avocation, and minimum wage indicators - In the absence of any positive evidence being tendered with regard to proof of income, necessarily guess work has to be made. (Para 18)

Juvenile In Conflict With Law Aa vs State Of Rajasthan - Second Bail Application - Detention Period Ground

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Bail - There is no embargo on filing a second bail application. No doubt, a second bail prayer may have to be considered on new grounds. But, in the context of bail, period of detention may, in circumstances, constitute a fresh ground. More so, in the context of a Juvenile where bail is the rule and denial of it is an exception. (Para 4)