Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3734 OF 2018
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 35932 OF 2016
SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
th
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10
Digitally signed by
SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR
Date: 2018.04.11
16:47:25 PKT
Reason:
July, 2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1045 of 2011. By the said
2
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.
th
3. Pursuant to a complaint lodged on 13 July, 2004 by the
appellant No. 1 herein in P.S. Cheluru stating that her husband
th
Narasa Reddy left home at 7 p.m. on 12 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
3
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.
4
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
5
and surmises which requires interference of this Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company,
however, supported the judgment of the High Court and
submitted that the High Court was right in not relying on the
evidence of PW3. The theory that the deceased was walking on the
footpath at the time of accident, was introduced by the appellants
only with a view to claim compensation. The High Court assessed
the aforesaid circumstances in a proper perspective and rightly
observed that the appellants are not entitled for compensation.
9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by the respective counsel and having
perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact
that at the time of occurrence the tractor which involved in the
accident was being driven by the driver—owner in a rash and
negligent manner. The evidence of PW3, an independent
eyewitness to the incident, in all probabilities, makes it clear that
the deceased had died because of the accident caused by the
tractor that was being driven in a rash and negligent manner
while the victim was going to his home as a pedestrian on the
footpath. The FIR also discloses the very fact. At the same time,
6
we find no material on record except the deposition of RW-1, the
Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, to establish that
the victim was a passenger of the tractor. A mere statement that
the victim was unlawfully travelling on the tractor, without any
probable evidence cannot be taken into consideration, when the
evidence to the contrary is available, in the form of deposition of
an independent eyewitness. Notably enough, the
driver-owner-insured of the tractor was not examined as witness.
It is also manifest that he did not prefer appeal against the verdict
of the Tribunal which in other words supports the case of
appellants—claimants. Considering the circumstances stated
above, in our opinion, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a
possible view, which could not have been reversed by the High
Court by merely making sweeping observations in a casual
manner without there being any reliable evidence. We, therefore,
afford our concurrence to the judgment arrived at by the
Tribunal.
10. Resultantly, as held by the Tribunal, the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the total
amount of compensation i.e. Rs.4,31,000/- to the appellants
herein along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of
7
claim petition till the date of realization.
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands
allowed in the aforestated terms, however, with no order as to
costs.
…………......................J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
..................................J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 11, 2018.
8
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3734 OF 2018 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No(s). 35932/2016
SUVARNAMMA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(HEARD BY HON'BLE N.V. RAMANA AND HON'BLE S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.)
Date : 11-04-2018 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv.
For Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR
Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Anugrah Niraj Ekka, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul
Nazeer.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)