SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 11-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR.
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3734 of 2018)
APRIL 11, 2018.
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Compensation – Claim for – For fatal accident – Award of
compensation by Claims Tribunal, holding the owner of the
offending vehicle and the insurance company jointly and severally
liable – Appeal by insurance company – High Court set aside the
award absolving the insurance company from liability – On appeal,
held: In the facts of the present case, the conclusion of the Tribunal
was a possible view, which could not have been reversed by High
Court by merely making sweeping observations in a casual manner
without there being any reliable evidence – Award confirmed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no dispute about the fact that at the
time of occurrence the tractor which was 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.  There is 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. 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
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1022
1022
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1023
appellants—claimants. Therefore, 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. [Para
9][1025-E-H]
2. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
the total amount of compensation to the appellants along with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till the
date of realization. [Para 10][1026-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3734
of 2018.
From the Order dated 10.07.2015 of the High Court of Karnataka
at Bengaluru in MFA No. 1045 of 2011.
Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh (for Dr. Sushil Balwada),
Advs. for the Appellants.
Mohit Paul, Vineet Malhotra and Anugrah Niraj Ekka, Advs. for
the respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th July,
2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1045 of 2011. By the said 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.
3. Pursuant to a complaint lodged on 13th July, 2004 by the appellant
No. 1 herein in P.S. Cheluru stating that her husband Narasa Reddy left
home at 7 p.m. on 12th 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-BuddalavaraPalli 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
SMT. SUVARNAMMA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
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 arrived at a
conclusion that the deceased died in the said motor accident due to rash
and neg

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