1. Motor accident resulting in death — Claim for compensation — Dispute over whether the deceased was a pedestrian or an unauthorized passenger on the vehicle. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 341
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Smt. Suvarnamma & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3734 of 2018 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 35932 of 2016
Decided On : 11-04-2018
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh For Dr. Sushil Balwada, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Mohit Paul, Vineet Malhotra, Anugrah Niraj Ekka, Advs.
For the Appellants :- Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh For Dr. Sushil Balwada, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Mohit Paul, Vineet Malhotra, Anugrah Niraj Ekka, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
A mere statement by Insurance official that the victim was unlawfully travelling on the tractor, without any probable evidence, cannot be considered.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – A mere statement by Insurance official that the victim was unlawfully travelling on the tractor, without any probable evidence – Not admissible – Eye witness deposing to the contrary – Driver owner of offending vehicle not examined – Not challenging award of Tribunal – Held, High Court erred in setting aside award of the tribunal. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
One Narasa Reddy was crushed under a ground levelling tractor causing his instantaneous death on the spot. Accordingly,
Subsequently, two claim petitions have been filed one by the wife and son of the deceased and the other by the father of the deceased, claiming compensation.
The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,31,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased i.e. Appellants herein and Rs. 10,000/- to the father of the deceased on the head of loss of love and affection. The tribunal has also directed that the Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) and owner of the tractor (Respondent No. 2) are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amounts with an interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. the date of claim petition till the date of realization and they shall deposit the said amounts within three months from the date of its order.
The High Court declared the judgment of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as erroneous and set aside the same absolving the insurance company from the liability.
Finding of the Court:
High Court erred in setting aside award of the tribunal.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend the High Court ignored eyewitness evidence of pedestrian status; Insurance Company argues the pedestrian theory was fabricated to secure compensation. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Independent eyewitness evidence supports the pedestrian theory, whereas the claim that the deceased was a passenger lacks probable evidence and relies on mere presumptions. (Para 9 )
4. A Tribunal's finding based on a possible view of evidence should not be reversed by a higher court based on conjectures or surmises. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal's award for compensation restored — Respondents held jointly and severally liable. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. When can a High Court reverse a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding on liability?
A High Court should not reverse a Tribunal's conclusion if it is a possible view based on the material on record, especially when the reversal is based on presumptions, conjectures, and surmises without reliable evidence. (Para 9 )
7. How should the court treat conflicting evidence regarding the status of a victim in a motor accident claim?
The court should prioritize the deposition of an independent eyewitness over mere statements or presumptions, particularly when the driver-owner of the vehicle is not examined as a witness. (Para 9 )
8. What is the legal significance of a driver-owner's failure to appeal a Tribunal's finding of negligence?
The failure of the driver-owner-insured to prefer an appeal against the Tribunal's verdict supports the case of the claimants regarding the circumstances of the accident. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT
N.V. Ramana, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th July, 2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1045 of 2011. By the said judgment, the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company exonerating it from the liability and set aside the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickballapur awarding compensation to the claimants.
3. Pursuant to a complaint lodged on 13th July, 2004 by the appellant No. 1 herein in P.S. Cheluru stating that her husband Narasa Reddy left home at 7 p.m. on 12th July, 2004 for supplying milk to the Chakavelu Dairy and did not return. In the early morning on the next day it was learnt that her husband was crushed under a ground levelling tractor bearing registration No. TN 38 B 5899 at Brahamanara Tank, near Maddamma Temple on Chakavelu-Buddalavara Palli Road causing his instantaneous death on the spot due to high speed and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. Accordingly, FIR has been registered in Crime No. 28/2004 under Sections 279 and 304(A), IPC. Subsequently, two claim petitions have been filed one by the wife and son of the deceased and the other by the father of the deceased, claiming compensation.
4. Learned Senior Civil Judge and Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickballapur framed the issues and arrived at a conclusion that the deceased died in the said motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2 herein (owner of the tractor). Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,31,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased i.e. Appellants herein and Rs. 10,000/- to the father of the deceased on the head of loss of love and affection. The tribunal has also directed that the Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) and owner of the tractor (Respondent No. 2) are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amounts with an interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. the date of claim petition till the date of realization and they shall deposit the said amounts within three months from the date of its order.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal awarding compensation to the appellants herein, the Insurance Company assailed the same before the High Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1045 of 2011. However, the High Court formed the view that the claim of legal heirs of the deceased was based on false grounds. By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court declared the judgment of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as erroneous and set aside the same absolving the insurance company from the liability. Consequently, the legal heirs of the deceased being appellants herein are before us in the present appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court has committed a serious error of law by disproving the specific finding recorded by the Tribunal based on the valid material on record. It is clear from the evidence of eyewitness Eashwara Reddy-PW3 who was a passerby at the relevant time that the accident occurred due to rash driving in negligent manner by the driver of the vehicle while the victim was walking on the footpath. In spite of cogent and reliable evidence adduced by PW3, the High Court discredited the same and wrongly presumed that the deceased was travelling in the tractor by sitting on its blade, though there was no evidence let in by the Insurance Company on that aspect. Even in the absence of examination of the driver of the tractor, though nothing was adversely elicited in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the High Court ignoring the settled principles of law based its judgment only on certain presumptions, conjectures and surmises which requires interference of this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Com
