Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision to award Rs 21,82,800 as compensation to the family of a deceased but absolved a minor of involvement in a road accident in 2016, finding no substantive or direct evidence against him.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the motor accident claims tribunal as well as the high court committed a grave error in not considering the evidence in the correct perspective and misguided themselves in recording perverse findings regarding the minor’s involvement in the accident.

On January 13, 2016, deceased Vijay Jumnalkar, along with his friend Ravi, was going to Vijaya Nagar, Belagavi, to meet one of his acquaintances. When both of them reached the road near Atawadkar Layout, Vijaya Nagar, the offending Bolero vehicle, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came from Sainandan Residency towards Atawadkar Layout and dashed against the deceased.

The deceased was dragged some distance, and on account of the said impact, he died on the spot.

Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by Ravi, the complainant, who stated that the minor was driving the offending vehicle. The FIR was challenged by the owner of the offending vehicle in a criminal petition, but it was dismissed by the high court.

The tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the minor, who was driving the offending vehicle. It granted compensation to the family of the deceased to the tune of Rs 7,74,088, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

The high court, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-claimants, thereby enhancing the compensation to Rs 21,82,800, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, as against the Rs 7,74,088 awarded by the tribunal. It also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-owner.

The appellants contended that the minor, at the time of the incident, was not involved in the accident as he was merely seated beside the driver. They further asserted that the minor’s father was the one who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, despite this, a false criminal case was filed against the minor and his father, accusing them of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, in addition to violations of Sections 5, 4, 180, 181, and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

They claimed that the respondent-claimants, in collusion with police officials, had managed to file a chargesheet against the minor. Moreover, the appellants-owner also claimed that the respondent-claimants were entitled only to reasonable compensation from the insurance company in view of the contributory negligence of the deceased, Vijay.

On the other hand, the respondent-claimants submitted that the findings of the courts below were well-founded and that they had rightly appreciated the evidence on record concerning the negligence that directly resulted in the accident and the death of the deceased.

The court examined the main issue of whether 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 bench said.

The minor’s father deposed that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased, Vijay, who, while talking on his mobile phone, abruptly appeared in front of the offending vehicle. He denied the allegations made by the respondent-claimants regarding the accident and maintained that neither he nor his minor son was responsible for the incident.

It was further asserted that the offending vehicle was being driven by an elderly individual, and the minor was seated beside him.

It was also argued before the tribunal that Ravi, a friend of the deceased who was accompanying him on the date of the incident and was one of the eyewitnesses who registered the complaint, admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of the accident, Narayan Patil, i.e., the minor’s father, was driving the vehicle. Additionally, Ravi testified that a complaint was registered against the minor based on a statement provided by the police.

"Taking into consideration the material evidence, we can conclusively hold that there is no substantive or direct evidence establishing the involvement of the minor in the accident in question. No evidence can suggest any cogent or unequivocal proof linking the 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 the minor in the alleged act, the claim against him remains untenable and unsubstantiated," the bench held.

The court thus set aside the findings regarding the minor’s involvement as unsustainable in law.

It concluded that the deceased lost his life due to the negligence of the minor’s father, who was, in fact, driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. The minor was merely a passenger seated beside the driver and had no role in the accident, the court said.

The bench fixed the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation, also setting aside the findings for recovery of the amount from the appellant-owner and driver of the vehicle.

The court, however, found no ground to interfere with the judgment and award of compensation, holding that the insurance company would be liable to pay the amount and would not recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

Case Title: Sachin Yallappa Usulkar Vs Vijayata & Ors