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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.