Whether the appellants proved on preponderance of probabilities that the identified canter lorry was involved in the accident and that its driver acted rashly/negligently. Whether the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court suffer from perversity or are based on palpably erroneous appreciation of evidence such as to warrant interference under Article 136.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim for compensation — Standard of proof — Involvement of alleged offending vehicle — Concurrent findings — Appreciation of evidence — Interference under Article 136. Claim petitions for compensation arising from a road accident which resulted in two deaths were dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; the High Court affirmed on the ground that claimants failed to establish involvement of the alleged offending vehicle. On appeal, this Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court would not be disturbed unless the appreciation of evidence was perverse or wholly unsatisfactory. The court observed: (i) the relevant standard in civil claims is preponderance of probabilities; (ii) documentary and oral evidence must nonetheless be cogent and consistent to link the offending vehicle to the accident; (iii) material contradictions in witness testimony, absence of independent eye‑witnesses, delayed preparation of spot mahazar, and a Motor Vehicle Inspector's report showing no damage to the recovered vehicle undermine the claim; and (iv) filing of a chargesheet, while relevant, is not conclusive of civil liability. Finding no perversity in the concurrent findings and no exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the appeals were dismissed.

---

FACTUAL SUMMARY

• On 14.08.2013, a motorcycle carrying two young men (Sunil Singh — 26 years; Shivu — 22 years) met with a fatal accident near Sugur village. Both occupants died — one on the spot, the other subsequently in hospital.

• Legal representatives of each deceased filed separate claims under Section 166 MV Act against the owner/driver of an allegedly involved canter lorry and its insurer.

• The Claims Tribunal dismissed both petitions; the High Court dismissed the appeals. Primary reasons were unreliability and contradictions in oral testimony, absence of reliable eye‑witnesses positively identifying the offending vehicle at the time of accident, delayed spot mahazar, and a Motor Vehicle Inspector report (dated 05.10.2013) indicating no damage to the vehicle recovered thereafter.

---

ISSUES

1. Whether the appellants proved on preponderance of probabilities that the identified canter lorry was involved in the accident and that its driver acted rashly/negligently.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court suffer from perversity or are based on palpably erroneous appreciation of evidence such as to warrant interference under Article 136.

---

ANALYSIS AND REASONS

1. Concurrent findings of fact: Interference under Article 136 in relation to concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court is exceptional; this Court will not disturb such findings unless the appreciation of evidence is manifestly perverse or wholly unsatisfactory (see Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Ltd.).

2. Standard of proof: Civil claims under Section 166 are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. However, preponderance requires credible, cogent and coherent evidence linking the vehicle and its driver to the accident. The absence of registration particulars in the first complaint is not conclusive, but must be read with the totality of evidence.

3. Infirmities in the appellants' case:

   • Key witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) admitted they were not eye‑witnesses and derived their knowledge from police or hearsay; they had not visited the spot and were unfamiliar with other witnesses claimed to have seen the incident.

   • Witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 who purportedly narrated confessional statements by the driver gave inconsistent testimony and materially contradicted their examination‑in‑chief during cross‑examination, weakening the reliability of their accounts.

   • The spot mahazar(s) were prepared several days after the incident; provenance and basis for entries were not satisfactorily demonstrated.

   • The Motor Vehicle Inspector's report noted no damage to the vehicle recovered 1.5 months later — a circumstance inconsistent with a collision causing two fatalities.

   • The chargesheet, though relevant, cannot substitute for cogent civil proof; a police charge is not conclusive of civil liability and must be weighed with other materials.

4. Taken cumulatively, these infirmities support the concurrent conclusion that connection between the accident and the alleged offending vehicle was not established on a preponderance of probabilities.

---

CONCLUSION & ORDER

1. The appeals are dismissed for lack of merit.

2. The concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court that the appellants failed to establish the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle are not vitiated by perversity or manifest error of appreciation.

3. No order as to costs.