LexSACHIN YALLAPPA USULKAR & ORS. versus VIJAYATA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2080 : 2025 INSC 290 Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors. (SLP (C) No(s). 1970-1971 of 2023) 28 February 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below warrant any interference in so far as the award of compensation is concerned. Whether appellant no.2, who was minor at the time of incident, was actually involved in the accident. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident – Victim-deceased went to meet one of his acquaintances, offending vehicle driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against the victim and he was dragged to some distance – Victim died on spot – Allegation that appellant no.2/minor was driving the offending vehicle – Claim petition by respondents – Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.7,74,088/- – However, the High Court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.21,82,800/- – The enhanced the compensation with interest was directed to be paid by respondent no.4-Insurance company and thereafter to recover the same from appellants/owner – Correctness: Held: The impugned judgment and order passed by the courts below do not warrant any interference in so far as the award of compensation is concerned – The compensation awarded by the courts below is upheld – The courts below have committed a grave error in failing to properly appreciate the evidence presented by the Appellants/Owner, in determining who was actually driving the offending Vehicle at the time of the accident – Taking into consideration the material evidence, it can be conclusively held that there is no substantive or direct evidence establishing the involvement of appellant no.2/Minor in the accident in question – No evidence can suggest any cogent or unequivocal proof linking * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2081 Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors. appellant no.2/Minor as the actual driver of the offending Vehicle at the time of the incident – Accordingly, in the absence of even the slightest credible evidence pointing towards the direct involvement of appellant no.2/Minor in the alleged act, the claim against him remains untenable and unsubstantiated – Both the Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed grave error in not considering the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse findings regarding involvement of appellant no.2/Minor in the accident – The findings recorded by the lower courts regarding the alleged involvement of appellant no.2/Minor in the accident are, therefore, unsustainable in law – Thus, appellant no.2/Minor is absolved of any liability and the respondent no.4/Company shall be liable to pay the quantum of compensation to respondent nos.1-2/Claimants – The Insurance Company shall not be entitled to any recovery from the owner and driver of the vehicle in question. [Paras 15, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 16.1] Case Law Cited Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George, 2024 INSC 787 : [2024] 10 SCR 786 – relied on. Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [2018] 5 SCR 287 : (2018) 5 SCC 656 – referred to. List of Keywords Motor Vehicle Accident claim; Compensation; Material evidence; Substantive evidence; Direct evidence; Driver of vehicle; Examination of evidence on record. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 1970-1971 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2022 of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in MFA Nos. 101253 and 101435 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Adv. for the Petitioners: Charudatta Vijayrao Mahindrakar. 2082 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Advs. for the Respondents: M/s. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, Anil C Nishani, Meenesh Dubey, Krishna M Singh, Vishwesh R Murnal, C. George Thomas, Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ila Nath. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave Granted. 2. The Appeal is arising out of the common impugned judgment and final order dated 25.05.2022 in M.F.A. No. 101253 of 2019 (MV-D) filed by Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and M.F.A. No. 101435 of 2019 (MV-D) filed by the Appellants/Owner of Vehicle. The High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad (hereinafter “High Court”), partly allowed the appeal filed by Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants and dismissed the appeal filed by Appellants/Owner. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The fa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.