LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/smt-suvarnamma-anr-vs-united-india-insurance-company-ltd-anr-20180411/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Smt. Suvarnamma & Anr. vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
11 April 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 3734 of 2018
Result
Allowed
Bench
N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer
Citation
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1022 : 2018 INSC 328
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1022 : 2018 INSC 328
Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

Compensation – Claim for – For fatal accident – Award of 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 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 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 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 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 appellants—claimants. Therefore, 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. [Para 9][1025-E-H]

2. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay 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]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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, 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 claimants. 3. Pursuant to a complaint lodged on 13th July, 2004 by the appellant No. 1 herein in P.S. Cheluru statin
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →