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

Note

You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:

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.]

Case Info


Key Details

  • Case name: Sithara N.S. & Ors. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited
  • Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1425
  • Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol; Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
  • Judgment date: December 12, 2025
  • Appeal numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 14718-14719 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 281-282/2019)
  • Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Caselaws and citations

  • Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur, (2015) 2 SCC 410, para 9
    • Cited for limits on Article 136 interference with concurrent findings of fact and the standard for perversity/unsatisfactory appreciation of evidence.

Statutes/Laws referred

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166
    • Elements to be proved: occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle, rash/negligent act.
  • Constitution of India, Article 136
    • Extraordinary jurisdiction; interference with concurrent findings only in exceptional cases.