SACHIN YALLAPPA USULKAR & ORS.versusVIJAYATA & ORS.

                 [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 facts relevant for the disposal of the present case are that on
     13.01.2016, deceased Vijay Jumnalkar, husband of the 1st claimant,
     father of the 2nd claimant and son of the 3rd claimant along with his
     friend Shri Ravi s/o Vasanath Gurav had been to Vijaya Nagar,
     Belagavi to meet one of his acquaintances and when both of them
     reached the road near Atawadkar Layout, Vijaya Nagar, offending
     Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. KA-22-P-1449 (hereinafter
     “Vehicle”) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
     and in high speed came from Sainandan Residency towards
     Atawadkar layout and dashed against the deceased. The deceased
     was dragged to some distance and on account of the said impact,
     he died on the spot. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by Shri Ravi/
     complainant, who stated that Appellant No. 2/Minor was driving the
     offending Vehicle. The aforesaid FIR was challenged by the owner
     of the offending Vehicle in a Criminal Petition, but the same was
     dismissed by the High Court.
4.   A claim petition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants
     u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                      2083

            Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors.


     Claims Tribunal (hereinafter “Tribunal”) against the Appellants/
     Owner seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- along
     with interest. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record,
     concluded that the accident took place due to the actionable
     negligence on the part of Appellant No. 2/Minor who was driving the
     offending Vehicle. The Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of
     Rs. 7,74,088/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date
     of claim petition till date of realization.
5.   Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
     12.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal, Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants
     filed M.F.A. No. 101253 of 2019 (MV-D) seeking enhancement of
     compensation while Appellants/Owner filed M.F.A. No. 101435 of
     2019 (MV-D) challenging the award and praying to set aside the
     order passed by the Tribunal.
6.   The High Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly
     allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants,
     thereby enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,82,800/-
     with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
     till date of realization, as against Rs. 7,74,088/- awarded by the
     Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants/Owner.
     The aforesaid enhanced compensation with interest was directed to
     be paid by Respondent No. 4, Insurance Company and thereafter to
     recover the same from the Appellants/Owner in the same proceedings
     under the principle of “Pay and Recover.”
7.   Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common impugned judgment
     and order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the High Court dismissing the
     appeal of Appellants/Owner, the instant appeals have been preferred
     by Appellants/Owner.
8.   Learned counsel for Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have vehemently argued
     that Appellant No. 1 was the registered owner of the offending
     vehicle, and it was being used by Appellant No. 1’s friend, the father
     of Appellant No. 2 who had paid the insurance premium and held
     a valid driving license. While acknowledging the occurrence of the
     accident, the Appellants argued that the incident was caused due
     to negligence on part of the deceased himself.
     8.1 Additionally, it was contended that Appellant No. 2, who was a
         minor at the time of occurrence of incident, was not involved in
         the accident as he was merely seated beside the driver, being
2084                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


             the son of Appellant No. 3. It was further asserted that the father
             of Appellant No. 2 was the one who was driving the vehicle at
             the time of the accident. However, despite this, a false criminal
             case has been filed against Appellant No. 2/Minor and his father,
             accusing them of offences under Sections 279, 304-A of the
             Indian Penal Code, 1860, in addition to violations of Sections
             5, 4, 180, 181 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
      8.2 Further, it was argued that the Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants,
          in collusion with the police officials, have managed to file
          chargesheet against the Appellant No. 2/Minor. Moreover,
          Appellants/Owner claimed that Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants
          are entitled for reasonable compensation from Respondent
          No. 4 in view of the contributory negligence on the part of the
          deceased Vijay himself.
9.    Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 (the deceased’s
      wife), Respondent No. 2 (the deceased’s mentally disabled son),
      and the deceased’s elderly mother submits that the findings of the
      courts below are well-founded and the courts below have rightly
      appreciated the evidence on record concerning the negligence of
      the Appellants/Owner, which directly resulted in the accident and
      the death of the deceased.
      9.1 The Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants further contended that
          the quantum of compensation awarded by the courts below
          deserves enhancement. In this regard, it was further contended
          that Respondent No. 1, is the widow of the deceased, is
          unable to earn her livelihood, as she cannot leave Respondent
          No. 2, her mentally disabled son, unattended, as her disabled
          son requires constant care, attention, and service due to his
          condition. Moreover, the late elderly mother of the deceased,
          was in her advance stage of age and was unable to take care
          of herself and of Respondent No. 2. It is further contended that
          the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, and the
          Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants were entirely dependent upon
          him for their sustenance.
10. At this stage, we may profitably note that this Court earlier in
    Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George1 had an occasion to examine


1    2024 INSC 787
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            2085

              Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors.



     the evidence on record in an appeal filed under Article 136 of the
     Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the aforesaid case read
     as under:
            “Before proceeding to dwell on the merits of the matter
            we remind ourselves that the present is an appeal under
            Article 136 of the Constitution of India wherein, ordinarily,
            this Court would not reappreciate the evidence. However,
            this Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
            Ors.2 has held that in an appeal under Article 136 of the
            Constitution of India, ordinarily this Court will not engage
            itself in reappreciation of the evidence as such but can
            certainly examine the evidence on record to consider the
            challenge to the findings recorded by Tribunal or the High
            Court, being perverse or replete with error apparent on the
            face of the record and being manifestly wrong.”
     This being the legal position, we now proceed to examine the evidence
     on record to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by
     the courts below.
11. To our mind, the present controversy tasks us to address the main
    issue of whether the Appellant No. 2, who was a minor at the time
    of the accident, was involved in the accident or not. To arrive at a
    fair and just conclusion on this issue, it is necessary to undertake
    reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the
    Tribunal. The Appellants/Owner and Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants
    examined three witnesses each and exhibited number of documents
    in their evidence before the Tribunal.
12. It was the consistent case of the Appellants/Owner from the beginning
    that Appellant No. 2/Minor was not driving the vehicle at the time
    of the accident. It was asserted that Appellant No. 2/Minor had
    merely occupied a seat beside the driver, as a family member of
    the Appellant No. 3. In support of their case, the Appellant No. 1/
    Owner examined himself as RW1 and father of Appellant No. 2 as
    RW2, respectively, and also produced one additional witness as
    RW3 before the Tribunal.


2   (2018) 5 SCC 656.
2086                                                     [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports



     12.1 Appellant No. 1, who got himself examined as RW1 and father
          of Appellant No. 2 along with Appellant No. 2, has examined
          himself and on behalf of Appellant No. 2/Minor as RW2 have
          both admitted, during their respective chief-examination that
          RW1 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, was
          being used by RW2. RW1 and RW2 have further deposed that
          RW2 was driving the Vehicle at the time of the unfortunate
          incident. It was further asserted that Appellant No. 2, who was
          the minor son of RW2, was not involved in the accident and
          had merely occupied the seat next to the driver as a family
          member of RW2.
     12.2 Further, RW2 has deposed that the accident was caused
          on account of negligence of the deceased, Vijay, who, while
          talking on his mobile phone, abruptly appeared in front of the
          offending Vehicle. RW2 denied the allegations made by the
          Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants regarding the accident and
          maintains that neither he nor his minor son, Appellant No. 2,
          are responsible for the incident.
     12.3 During the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, RW3,
          who has been cited as a chargesheet witness and is also an
          eyewitness to the incident in question, has been examined by
          Appellants/Owner. RW3 reiterated the version of Appellants/
          Owner in his chief-examination deposing that the accident in
          question occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It
          was further asserted by RW3 that the offending Vehicle was
          being driven by an elderly individual, and Appellant No. 2, a
          minor, was seated by his side.
     12.4 It was also argued before the Tribunal that Shri Ravi, a friend
          of the deceased who was accompanying the deceased on
          the date of the incident, being one of the eyewitnesses who
          registered the complaint, was examined by Respondent
          Nos. 1-2/Claimants. He has admitted in his cross-examination
          that on the date of the accident, Narayan Patil i.e. father of
          Appellant No. 2 was driving the Vehicle. Additionally, Shri Ravi
          testified that a complaint was registered against Appellant
          No. 2/Minor based on the statement provided by the police.
13. On the contrary, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants
    submitted that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                      2087

            Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors.


     driving of Appellant No. 2 who was a minor on the date of the
     accident. The Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants to prove their case
     got examined Respondent No. 1 as PW1 and two witnesses on their
     behalf as PW2 and PW3 before the Tribunal.

     13.1 PW1, the wife of the deceased, has reiterated the material
          averments of the claim petition in her chief-examination
          affidavit. She deposed that on 13.01.2016, the deceased,
          accompanied by PW3 (Shri Ravi), had travelled to Vijaynagar,
          Belagavi, to meet an acquaintance. Upon reaching Atawadkar
          Layout, he stood on the roadside making a phone call. At that
          point of time, Appellant No. 2, a minor, was driving a Bolero
          vehicle from Sainandan Residency towards Atawadkar Layout
          in a rash and negligent manner, disregarding traffic regulations.
          Losing control, he struck the deceased with force, dragging him
          under the vehicle. As a direct consequence of this collision,
          the deceased sustained grievous and fatal injuries to his head,
          limbs, and other vital parts of his body. Despite efforts, he
          succumbed to the injuries.

     13.2 During the course of trial, PW3, a friend of the deceased and
          an eyewitness to the incident, corroborated with the version
          of PW1. However, during cross examination, PW3 conceded
          that on the date of the accident, father of Appellant No. 2 i.e.
          Narayan Patil was driving the offending Vehicle.

     13.3 In corroboration of her oral testimony, PW1 strongly relied
          upon various documents including (a) FIR in PS Crime No.
          8/2016 which came to be registered against Appellant No. 2/
          Minor and father of Appellant No. 2; (b) complaint lodged by
          PW3; (c) charge sheet filed against Appellant No. 1, Appellant
          No. 2/Minor and father of Appellant No. 2; (d) CC of the
          Memorandum of Criminal Petition No. 100603/2017 filed by
          Appellant No. 2/Minor against PW3 and another before the
          High Court praying to set-aside the proceedings initiated in PS
          No. 8/2016 in so far as the Appellant No. 2/Minor is concerned;
          (e) CC of the Order dated 05.07.2017 passed in Criminal
          Petition No. 100603/2017 by the High Court in rejecting the
          said Criminal Petition.
2088                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
14. We have heard the learned counsels representing the respective
    parties at length and have meticulously examined the records
    presented before us. The arguments advanced by both sides have
    been duly considered, and all relevant materials, including witness
    testimonies and documentary evidence, have been thoroughly
    scrutinized.
15. Upon detailed evaluation, we find that 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. However, the primary issue
    that necessitates further consideration is the question of whether
    Appellant No. 2, who was a minor at the time of the incident, was
    actually involved in the accident in question. In order to arrive at
    a just and fair conclusion on this issue, it becomes imperative to
    closely examine and analyse the statements of witnesses who were
    produced and examined before the Tribunal as well as other relevant
    pieces of evidence.
     15.1 In the present case, we observe that 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. A thorough examination of the record makes it
          clear that the following crucial aspects of the evidence indicates
          that it was the father of Appellant No. 2 who was driving the
          vehicle at the material time, and not Appellant No. 2/Minor:
           (i) Testimony of PW1 (Wife of the Deceased): During
           her cross-examination, PW1 categorically admitted that
           she had not witnessed the accident in question. Therefore,
           her testimony does not provide direct evidence regarding
           the identity of the driver of the offending Vehicle.
           (ii) Testimony of PW3 (Friend Accompanying the
           Deceased): PW3, who was accompanying the deceased
           at the time of the accident, also conceded during his cross-
           examination that Narayan Patil i.e. father of Appellant
           No. 2 was driving the offending Vehicle. His testimony,
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          2089

            Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors.


            therefore, establishes that Appellant No. 2/Minor was not
            the driver of the Vehicle.
            (iii) Testimony of RW3 (Eyewitness Mentioned in the
            Charge Sheet): RW3, who was cited as an eyewitness
            in the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency,
            provided a critical statement. He affirmed that the
            offending Vehicle was being driven by an adult person at
            the time of the accident. Furthermore, he explicitly stated
            that Appellant No. 2/minor was merely sitting beside
            the driver as a family member and was not driving the
            offending vehicle.
            (iv) Deposition of Appellants/Owner of the Vehicle:
            The Appellants, including the owner of the vehicle,
            have consistently maintained in their deposition that
            father of Appellant No. 2 was the one who was driving
            the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. They
            further asserted that Appellant No. 2/Minor had no role
            in the accident and was simply seated beside the driver
            as a family member.
     15.2 Taking into consideration the aforesaid material evidence, we
          can conclusively hold 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 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.
     15.3 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we
          are of the firm opinion that 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.
2090                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     15.4 In the light of the evidence on record, we set aside the finding
          of the courts below to the extent that Appellant No. 2/Minor
          was involved in the accident, and, therefore resultantly, the
          deceased lost his life due to the negligence on the part of
          father of Appellant No. 2 who was, in fact, driving the offending
          vehicle at the time of the incident. Appellant No. 2/Minor was
          merely a passenger seated beside the driver and had no role
          in the accident.
16. Therefore, we partly allow the appeals filed by the Appellants/
    Owner, limiting our interference to the extent that Appellant No. 2/
    Minor is absolved of any involvement in the accident. However, the
    Respondent Insurance Company shall not be absolved of its liability
    and the direction regarding recovery by it is set aside.
     16.1 With respect to the compensation awarded for the loss suffered,
          we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and award
          passed by the High Court. The compensation awarded is
          upheld. However, Appellant No. 2/Minor is absolved of any
          liability and therefore, 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.
17. No order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan