Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1424
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.27861 of 2023)
Radha Thevannoor
…Appellant
Versus
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
…Respondents
O R D E R
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2025.12.12
16:47:47 IST
Reason:
deceased-driver of the car.
Page 1 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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.
Page 2 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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
Page 3 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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
st
RW2 was impleaded as 1 respondent in the claim
petition. He remained ex-parte and did not file any
objection to the claim alleging negligence in the driving
of the truck. The SSI of Police examined as RW1 also
stated in his cross examination that the Mahazar
prepared at the accident spot validated the contention of
negligence of the truck driver.
9. In the above circumstances, we would set aside the
order of the High Court insofar as it found contributory
negligence and restore the award of the Tribunal. The
modification made by the High Court were twofold; one,
on the contributory negligence which stands set aside
and the other, deleting Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh
and sixty thousand) in the Tribunals award towards love
and affection. The deletion of the amounts granted
towards love and affection, as carried out by the High
Page 5 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
Court, is perfectly in order, especially since all the
claimants have been granted compensation for loss of
consortium.
10. The appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the
contributory negligence, as found by the High Court and
awarding the full amounts as computed by the Tribunal,
except the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh
and sixty thousand) deleted by the High Court. The
balance amounts shall be paid along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum, as directed by the Tribunal.
11. The appeal stands partly allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…….……….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 08, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.27861 of 2023)
Radha Thevannoor
…Appellant
Versus
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
…Respondents
O R D E R
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2025.12.12
16:47:47 IST
Reason:
deceased-driver of the car.
Page 1 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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.
Page 2 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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
Page 3 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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
Page 4 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
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
st
RW2 was impleaded as 1 respondent in the claim
petition. He remained ex-parte and did not file any
objection to the claim alleging negligence in the driving
of the truck. The SSI of Police examined as RW1 also
stated in his cross examination that the Mahazar
prepared at the accident spot validated the contention of
negligence of the truck driver.
9. In the above circumstances, we would set aside the
order of the High Court insofar as it found contributory
negligence and restore the award of the Tribunal. The
modification made by the High Court were twofold; one,
on the contributory negligence which stands set aside
and the other, deleting Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh
and sixty thousand) in the Tribunals award towards love
and affection. The deletion of the amounts granted
towards love and affection, as carried out by the High
Page 5 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025
Court, is perfectly in order, especially since all the
claimants have been granted compensation for loss of
consortium.
10. The appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the
contributory negligence, as found by the High Court and
awarding the full amounts as computed by the Tribunal,
except the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh
and sixty thousand) deleted by the High Court. The
balance amounts shall be paid along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum, as directed by the Tribunal.
11. The appeal stands partly allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…….……….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 08, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025