Summary
The Supreme Court restored the award of Rs. 4,31,000 with six per cent annual interest to the deceased pedestrian’s wife and son. An independent eyewitness and the FIR supported death caused by negligent tractor driving. The insurer’s unsupported assertion that the deceased was riding unlawfully on the tractor did not displace that evidence; the driver-owner had not testified or appealed. The High Court had wrongly reversed the Tribunal through conjecture rather than reliable contrary evidence.
Issues
- Whether the evidence justified reversing the finding that the deceased was a pedestrian struck by the tractor.
- Whether the insurer’s passenger allegation displaced liability under the award.
Held
- The independent eyewitness supported the pedestrian account and rash and negligent driving, consistent with the FIR. Beyond its manager’s assertion the insurer offered no probable evidence establishing that the victim was riding on the tractor. The driver-owner was not examined and had not appealed the Tribunal’s decision. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- The Tribunal’s conclusion was a possible view on the record and could not be overturned by casual sweeping observations unsupported by reliable evidence. The insurer and owner remained jointly and severally liable for Rs. 4,31,000 with interest at six per cent annually from filing the claim petition until realisation. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants Rs. 4,31,000 with six per cent annual interest from the claim petition’s filing until realisation.