Suvarnamma . vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3734 OF 2018 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 35932 OF 2016

SMT. SUVARNAMMA & ANR. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified

2. Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2018.04.11 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10 th 16:47:25 PKT Reason:

July, 2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1045 of 2011. By the said 2

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 13 th 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 12 th 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-Buddalavara Palli 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

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 3

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 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 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 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. 4

Consequently, the legal heirs of the deceased being appellants

herein are before us in the present appeal.

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 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

wrongly presumed that the deceased was travelling in the tractor

by 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, conjectures 5

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 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 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 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, 6

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, 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 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.

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 7

claim petition till the date of realization.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands

allowed in the aforestated terms, however, with no order as to

costs.

…………......................J. (N.V. RAMANA)

..................................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

NEW DELHI, APRIL 11, 2018.

8

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3734 OF 2018 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 35932/2016

SUVARNAMMA & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)

(HEARD BY HON'BLE N.V. RAMANA AND HON'BLE S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.)

Date : 11-04-2018 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv.

For Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Adv.

Mr. Anugrah Niraj Ekka, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (RAJ RANI NEGI) AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)