No Proof Linking Minor As Actual Driver Of Offending Vehicle: Supreme Court Upholds Motor Accident Compensation
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the Owner of the offending vehicle in a road accident case.
Finding no substantive or direct evidence establishing the involvement of a minor in a road accident case, the Supreme Court has absolved him and asked the Insurance Company to the pay the quantum of compensation to the claimants.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the impugned judgment arising out of an application filed by the Respondents-Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and another application filed by the Appellants/Owner of Vehicle. The High Court of Karnataka partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents-Claimants and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants/Owner.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “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.”
Factual Background
It was alleged that the deceased Vijay Jumnalkar, husband of the fist claimant, father of the second claimant and son of the third claimant along with his friend were going to meet one of his acquaintances and when both of them reached the road near Atawadkar Layout, Vijaya Nagar, offending Bolero vehicle (Vehicle), being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed dashed against the deceased. The deceased was dragged to some distance and on account of the said impact, he died on the spot. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the complainant, who stated that the Appellant No. 2/Minor was driving the offending vehicle.
The aforesaid FIR was challenged by the owner of the offending Vehicle in a Criminal Petition, but the same was dismissed by the High Court. A claim petition was filed by the Respondents-Claimants u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) against the Appellants/Owner. The Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the actionable negligence on the part of Appellant No. 2/Minor, who was driving the offending Vehicle.
The Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs 7,74,088 with interest. However, in the appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants/Owner. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellants-Owners approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that the courts below 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. The testimony of the wife of the deceased did not provide direct evidence regarding the identity of the driver of the offending Vehicle. The Testimony of the friend accompanying the deceased also conceded during his cross-examination that the father of Appellant No. 2 was driving the offending Vehicle. His testimony, therefore, established that Appellant No. 2/Minor was not the driver of the Vehicle. The eyewitness mentioned in the charge sheet also affirmed that the offending Vehicle was being driven by an adult person at the time of the accident.
“Taking into consideration the aforesaid material evidence, we can conclusively hold that there is no substantive or direct evidence establishing the involvement of Appellant No. 2/Minor in the accident in question”, the Bench held.
The Court thus observed that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed grave error in not considering the evidence in true perspective and had misguided themselves to record perverse findings regarding involvement of Appellant No. 2/Minor in the accident. Thus, the Bench set aside the finding of the courts below to the extent that Appellant No. 2/Minor was involved in the accident, and, therefore resultantly, the deceased lost his life due to the negligence on the part of father of Appellant No. 2 who was, in fact, driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. “Appellant No. 2/Minor was merely a passenger seated beside the driver and had no role in the accident”, the Bench held while also adding, “Therefore, we partly allow the appeals filed by the Appellants/Owner, limiting our interference to the extent that Appellant No. 2/Minor is absolved of any involvement in the accident. However, the Respondent Insurance Company shall not be absolved of its liability and the direction regarding recovery by it is set aside.”
Upholding the compensation awarded, the Bench ordered, “Appellant No. 2/Minor is absolved of any liability and therefore, the Respondent No. 4/Company shall be liable to pay the quantum of compensation to Respondent Nos. 1-2/Claimants.”
Cause Title: Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 290)
