SHIVAWWA AND ANR versus THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 28-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
SHIVAWWA AND ANR.
v.
THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD. AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2247 of 2018)
MARCH 28, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Person died after falling
off from the  tractor-trailer owned by respondent No.2 – Claim
petition filed by appellant No.1, father of the deceased before
Tribunal seeking compensation from respondent No.1-insurance
company, respondent No.2 and the driver (employee of respondent
no.2) – Tribunal passed award against the respondents, jointly and
severally, to compensate the family members of the deceased with a
sum of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – High Court in appeal
held that respondent No.1 insurance company could not be saddled
with any liability as the deceased had not travelled along with his
goods in the tractor-trailer and therefore, it could not be made liable
to pay any compensation – Held: Tribunal analysed the evidence in
its entirety and also took into account the charge-sheet filed in
respect of the accident in question for accepting the factum that
deceased had travelled in the tractor along with his goods to
Holealur where he had gone to unload the foodgrains of Maize
loaded on the tractor belonging to respondent No.2 and while
returning therefrom met with the accident – High Court by a sweeping
observation proceeded to reverse the finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal – Conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a possible
view, which could not have been disturbed by the High Court in a
casual manner – Finding of the Tribunal that the deceased had
travelled along with his goods, affirmed and restored – Insurance
policy brought on record was a valid policy in respect of the
offending tractor and thus, insurer would be obliged to satisfy the
compensation amount awarded to the claimants– Award passed by
Tribunal restored.
[2018] 4  S.C.R. 599
599
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  4 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal had analysed the evidence of PW-
2 (eye-witness) and PW-1 (mother of the deceased) in its entirety
and also took into account other evidence in the shape of charge-
sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, in respect of the accident
in question for accepting the factum that deceased had travelled
in the tractor along with his goods to Holealur where he had gone
to unload the foodgrains of Maize loaded on the tractor belonging
to respondent No.2, which was driven by employee of respondent
No.2 and while returning from Holealur, met with the accident.
When cross-examined, PW-2 stated that on the date of accident
they had taken maize crop in the said tractor. Notably, the fact
that the deceased had loaded his agricultural produce on the
tractor and also accompanied the tractor for unloading the same
to Holealur and while returning met with an accident, has gone
unchallenged. [Para 7] [604-B-C, H; 605-A]
1.2  The High Court by a sweeping observation proceeded
to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The
conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a possible view, which could
not have been disturbed by the High Court in the appeal filed by
the insurer, much less in such a casual manner, as has been done
by the High Court.  [Para 9] [608-C-E]
1.3  The High Court based its conclusion that the insurer
cannot be saddled with the liability to satisfy the award, on the
finding that the deceased was not travelling along with his goods
at the time of accident. No more and no less.  However, as the
said finding recorded by the High Court cannot be sustained, the
finding of the Tribunal on the factum that the deceased had
travelled along with his goods is affirmed and restored. It would
necessarily follow that the insurer was not absolved of its liability
to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants. The
Tribunal had found, as of fact, that the insurance policy brought
on record was a valid policy in respect of the offending tractor.
Assuming that the insurance company was not liable to pay
compensation amount awarded to the claimants as the offending
tractor was duly insured, the insurer would be still liable to pay
the compensation amount in the first instance with liberty to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle owner
(respondent No.2).  However, in the facts of the present case,
consequent to affirmation and restoration of the finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal regarding the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.