SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

1022                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 1022               [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                       SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR.
                                         v.
           UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 3734 of 2018)
 B                               APRIL 11, 2018.
               [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
             Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
              Compensation – Claim for – For fatal accident – Award of
 C     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
 D
       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
 E     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
 F     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
 G     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
 H
                                       1022
     SMT. SUVARNAMMA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                                 1023
                  COMPANY LTD.

appellants—claimants. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the                 A
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               B
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.                                                                       C
      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.
                                                                               D
       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,         E
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           F
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          G
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
                                                                               H
1024             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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
 B     Claims Tribunal, Chickballapur framed the issues and arrived at a
       conclusion that the deceased died in the said motor accident due to rash
       and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2 herein (owner of the tractor).
       Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,31,000/-
       to the legal representatives of the deceased i.e. Appellants herein and
       Rs.10,000/- to the father of the deceased on the head of loss of love and
 C     affection. The tribunal has also directed that the Insurance Company
       (Respondent No.1) and owner of the tractor (Respondent No. 2) are
       jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amounts with an
       interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. the date of claim petition till the date of
       realization and they shall deposit the said amounts within three months
 D     from the date of its order.
              5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal awarding
       compensation to the appellants herein, the Insurance Company assailed
       the same before the High Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1045
       of 2011. However, the High Court formed the view that the claim of
 E     legal heirs of the deceased was based on false grounds. By the judgment
       impugned herein, the High Court declared the judgment of the Tribunal
       in awarding compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as erroneous
       and set aside the same absolving the insurance company from the liability.
       Consequently, the legal heirs of the deceased being appellants herein
       are before us in the present appeal.
 F
             6. We have heard learned counsel on either side and carefully
       perused the material on record.
              7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
       the High Court has committed a serious error of law by disproving the
 G     specific finding recorded by the Tribunal based on the valid material on
       record. It is clear from the evidence of eyewitness Eashwara Reddy—
       PW3 who was a passerby at the relevant time that the accident occurred
       due to rash driving in negligent manner by the driver of the vehicle while
       the victim was walking on the footpath. In spite of cogent and reliable
       evidence adduced by PW3, the High Court discredited the same and
 H
     SMT. SUVARNAMMA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE                                 1025
            COMPANY LTD. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

wrongly presumed that the deceased was travelling in the tractor by            A
sitting on its blade, though there was no evidence let in by the Insurance
Company on that aspect. Even in the absence of examination of the
driver of the tractor, though nothing was adversely elicited in the cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses, the High Court ignoring the settled
principles of law based its judgment only on certain presumptions,
                                                                               B
conjectures and surmises which requires interference of this Court.
       8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company,
however, supported the judgment of the High Court and submitted that
the High Court was right in not relying on the evidence of PW3. The
theory that the deceased was walking on the footpath at the time of
accident, was introduced by the appellants only with a view to claim           C
compensation. The High Court assessed the aforesaid circumstances in
a proper perspective and rightly observed that the appellants are not
entitled for compensation.
       9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions
advanced by the respective counsel and having perused the material on          D
record. There is no dispute about the fact that at the time of occurrence
the tractor which 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
                                                                               E
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. At the same time, we find 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,       F
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. Notably enough, 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
                                                                               G
supports the case of appellants—claimants. Considering the
circumstances stated above, in our opinion, 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. We, therefore, afford
our concurrence to the judgment arrived at by the Tribunal.                    H
1026             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           10. Resultantly, as held by the Tribunal, the respondents are jointly
       and severally liable to pay the total amount of compensation i.e.
       Rs.4,31,000/- to the appellants herein along with interest @ 6% p.a.
       from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization.
             11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands allowed in the
 B     aforestated terms, however, with no order as to costs.


       Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal allowed.



 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H