Radha Thevannoor vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.27861 of 2023)

Radha Thevannoor …Appellant Versus

M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-claimant restricted his challenge in the appeal

to the contributory negligence, as found by the High

Court. It is argued that despite the testimony of an

eyewitness being believed and also noticing the fact that

there cannot be any other evidence to clearly bring out

as to which of the vehicles were driven negligently, the

Signature Not Verified High Court found contributory negligence of 50% on the Digitally signed by geeta ahuja Date: 2025.12.12 16:47:47 IST Reason: deceased-driver of the car.

Page 1 of 6 Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025

3. Mr. Manu Luv Shalia, learned counsel appearing for

the insurance company contended that the inspection

report of the alleged offending vehicle, a truck, clearly

indicates from the damage caused to the vehicle that in

all probability, the car was driven rashly and negligently.

4. The facts, except the negligence aspect, are not in

dispute. At 02:30 am on 17.11.2014, an accident

occurred on the National Highway in which the driver of

the vehicle, the husband of the appellant, the father of

the proforma respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the son of the

proforma respondent Nos.7 and 8, died on the spot. An

FIR was registered by the truck driver, admittedly,

wherein the First Information Statement (FIS) indicated

allegation of negligence against the driver of the car, the

deceased. No investigation was carried out since the

accused arrayed had died. In the claim petition filed, the

Tribunal found negligence on the lorry driver, based on

the eyewitness testimony. The High Court reversed the

same finding contributory negligence and restricted the

award to half of that determined as compensation.

Page 2 of 6 Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025

5. The report of inspection produced as Annexure P2

indicates that the major damages to the truck were on

the left side of the truck. PW-3, the eyewitness was a

mechanic who was having a shop near the spot where

the accident occurred.PW-3 clearly deposed that he saw

the lorry being driven rashly and negligently on the right

side of the four lane National Highway. It was swerved to

the left and the car which was moving on the left lane

tried to brake and dashed against the truck causing the

accident. The eyewitness testimony regarding the rash

and negligent driving of the truck clearly clinches the

issue insofar as the negligence is concerned.

6. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no

reason for the High Court to have found contributory

negligence on mere surmises and conjectures. The High

Court merely observed that since PW-3 came to the

accident spot after hearing the sound of the accident

could not have witnessed what actually happened. PW-3

was present in the shop and he spoke of having seen the

truck being driven rashly and negligently on the

Page 3 of 6 Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025 Highway and it having abruptly swerved to the left,

which brings out the negligence of the truck driver.

7. True, the appellant who was examined as PW-1

could not have spoken of the accident, but the

eyewitness testimony coincides with the report of the

inspection of the offending vehicle. The truck having

been suddenly taken to the left lane, the car, which was

proceeding in the same direction on the left lane of the

four-lane highway dashed against the truck. This tallies

with the large-scale damages caused on the left side of

the truck. PW1 In cross examination said that he ran to

the spot when he heard the sound of impact. But that

does not persuade us to disbelieve his version in the

examination-in-chief that he saw the approaching

vehicles, the car on the left lane and the truck on the

right lane, the latter driven rashly. He repeated in cross

examination that the accident occurred since the truck

suddenly came to the left.

8. The driver/owner of the truck was examined as

RW2 who deposed that he lost control of the truck when

Page 4 of 6 Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025 the left-rear tyre of the vehicle burst, which was caused

by the impact of the car hitting the tyre. But no such

damage of tyre is noticed in the inspection report of the

truck. Pertinent also is the fact that the driver/owner

RW2 was impleaded as 1st respondent in the claim

petition. He remained ex-parte and did not file any

objection to the claim alleging negligence in the driving

of the truck. The SSI of Police examined as RW1 also

stated in his cross examination that the Mahazar

prepared at the accident spot validated the contention of

negligence of the truck driver.

9. In the above circumstances, we would set aside the

order of the High Court insofar as it found contributory

negligence and restore the award of the Tribunal. The

modification made by the High Court were twofold; one,

on the contributory negligence which stands set aside

and the other, deleting Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh

and sixty thousand) in the Tribunals award towards love

and affection. The deletion of the amounts granted

towards love and affection, as carried out by the High

Page 5 of 6 Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025 Court, is perfectly in order, especially since all the

claimants have been granted compensation for loss of

consortium.

10. The appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the

contributory negligence, as found by the High Court and

awarding the full amounts as computed by the Tribunal,

except the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh

and sixty thousand) deleted by the High Court. The

balance amounts shall be paid along with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum, as directed by the Tribunal.

11. The appeal stands partly allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

…….……….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 08, 2025.

Page 6 of 6 Civil Appeal No.14641 of 2025