1. Motor accident claim — Death of car driver — Dispute over negligence and contributory negligence — Appeal against High Court's modification of Tribunal award. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2041
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Radha Thevannoor – Appellant
Versus
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.27861 of 2023)
Decided On : 08-12-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Conclusion of contributory negligence on mere surmises and conjectures.
Death in motor accident – Conclusion of contributory negligence on mere surmises and conjectures.
Subject
Tort Law - Negligence
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Death in motor accident – High Court attributed 50% contributory negligence on deceased-driver of ill-fated car – There was absolutely no reason for High Court to have found contributory negligence on mere surmises and conjectures – Eyewitness testimony coincides with report of inspection of offending vehicle – Truck having been suddenly taken to left lane, car which was proceeding in same direction on left lane of four-lane highway dashed against truck – Eye-witness account tallies with large-scale damages caused on left side of truck – Deletion of amounts granted towards love and affection, as carried out by High Court, is perfectly in order, especially since all claimants have been granted compensation for loss of consortium – Contributory negligence, as found by High Court, set aside, awarding full amounts as computed by Tribunal, except amount of Rs.1,60,000/- deleted by High Court. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Fatal road accident. Despite testimony of an eyewitness being believed and also noticing fact that there cannot be any other evidence to clearly bring out as to which of vehicles were driven negligently, High Court found contributory negligence of 50% on deceased-driver of car.
Findings of Court:
Balance amounts shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as directed by Tribunal.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. Azhar Assees, Adv. Mr. Anand B. Menon, Adv. Ms. Rizwana R. Raj, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Jena, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manu Luv Shalil, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Ms. Jyoti, Adv. Mr. Amitava Poddar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth, AOR Mr. Prateek Goyal, Adv. Mr. Harshit Manwani, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Haris Beeran, Adv. Mr. Azhar Assees, Adv. Mr. Anand B. Menon, Adv. Ms. Rizwana R. Raj, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Jena, Adv. Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manu Luv Shalil, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Ms. Jyoti, Adv. Mr. Amitava Poddar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth, AOR Mr. Prateek Goyal, Adv. Mr. Harshit Manwani, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges finding of contributory negligence based on eyewitness testimony — Insurance company relies on vehicle inspection report to allege rash driving by deceased. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Eyewitness testimony and vehicle inspection report consistently indicate truck driver's negligence; High Court's finding of contributory negligence based on surmises and conjectures. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Contributory negligence cannot be inferred from surmises and conjectures when eyewitness testimony and physical evidence consistently establish the negligence of the other party. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal partly allowed — Finding of contributory negligence set aside — Tribunal award restored, excluding compensation for love and affection. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. How is contributory negligence determined when eyewitness testimony and physical evidence are available?
Contributory negligence cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. If eyewitness testimony and vehicle inspection reports consistently indicate the negligence of one party, such evidence clinches the issue of negligence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of a vehicle inspection report in determining negligence?
An inspection report showing specific damage that coincides with eyewitness accounts of the accident's mechanics serves as material evidence to establish negligence and validate the version of events. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. Does the absence of a party's objection to a claim affect the finding of negligence?
Yes, when a respondent remains ex-parte and fails to file objections alleging negligence by the other party, it weakens their subsequent claims of negligence during the proceedings. (Para 8 )
9. Can compensation for love and affection be granted alongside loss of consortium?
The court indicated that deleting amounts granted for love and affection is appropriate when all claimants have already been granted compensation for loss of consortium. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant restricted his challenge in the appeal to the contributory negligence, as found by the High Court. It is argued that despite the testimony of an eyewitness being believed and also noticing the fact that there cannot be any other evidence to clearly bring out as to which of the vehicles were driven negligently, the High Court found contributory negligence of 50% on the deceased-driver of the car.
3. Mr. Manu Luv Shalia, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the inspection report of the alleged offending vehicle, a truck, clearly indicates from the damage caused to the vehicle that in all probability, the car was driven rashly and negligently.
4. The facts, except the negligence aspect, are not in dispute. At 02:30 am on 17.11.2014, an accident occurred on the National Highway in which the driver of the vehicle, the husband of the appellant, the father of the proforma respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the son of the proforma respondent Nos.7 and 8, died on the spot. An FIR was registered by the truck driver, admittedly, wherein the First Information Statement (FIS) indicated allegation of negligence against the driver of the car, the deceased. No investigation was carried out since the accused arrayed had died. In the claim petition filed, the Tribunal found negligence on the lorry driver, based on the eyewitness testimony. The High Court reversed the same finding contributory negligence and restricted the award to half of that determined as compensation.
5. The report of inspection produced as Annexure P2 indicates that the major damages to the truck were on the left side of the truck. PW-3, the eyewitness was a mechanic who was having a shop near the spot where the accident occurred.PW-3 clearly deposed that he saw the lorry being driven rashly and negligently on the right side of the four lane National Highway. It was swerved to the left and the car which was moving on the left lane tried to brake and dashed against the truck causing the accident. The eyewitness testimony regarding the rash and negligent driving of the truck clearly clinches the issue insofar as the negligence is concerned.
6. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no reason for the High Court to have found contributory negligence on mere surmises and conjectures. The High Court merely observed that since PW-3 came to the accident spot after hearing the sound of the accident could not have witnessed what actually happened. PW-3 was present in the shop and he spoke of having seen the truck being driven rashly and negligently on the Highway and it having abruptly swerved to the left, which brings out the negligence of the truck driver.
7. True, the appellant who was examined as PW-1 could not have spoken of the accident, but the eyewitness testimony coincides with the report of the inspection of the offending vehicle. The truck having been suddenly taken to the left lane, the car, which was proceeding in the same direction on the left lane of the four-lane highway dashed against the truck. This tallies with the large-scale damages caused on the left side of the truck. PW1 In cross examination said that he ran to the spot when he heard the sound of impact. But that does not persuade us to disbelieve his version in the examination-in-chief that he saw the approaching vehicles, the car on the left lane and the truck on the right lane, the latter driven rashly. He repeated in cross examination that the accident occurred since the truck suddenly came to the left.
8. The driver/owner of the truck was examined as RW2 who deposed that he lost control of the truck when the left-rear tyre of the vehicle burst, which was caused by the impact of the car hitting the tyre. But no such damage of tyre is noticed in the inspection report of the truck. Pertinent also is the fact that the driver/owner RW2 was impleaded as 1st respondent in the claim petition. He
