Summary
The Tribunal and the High Court held that a minor (Appellant No. 2) was driving the Bolero that killed the claimants' breadwinner, awarded compensation enhanced to Rs. 21,82,800 and directed the insurer to pay and recover from the owner. Re-examining the evidence, the Court found no evidence that the minor was driving, the eyewitnesses themselves having stated that his father drove, absolved the minor, upheld the compensation and set aside the pay-and-recover direction, making the insurer liable without recovery.
Issues
- Whether, in an appeal under Article 136, the Supreme Court can re-examine the evidence to test findings of the Tribunal and the High Court alleged to be perverse.
- Whether the finding that Appellant No. 2, a minor, was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident was sustainable on the evidence.
- Whether the insurer's pay-and-recover direction against the owner could survive once the minor was absolved, and whether the quantum of compensation called for interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The claim petition for compensation on account of the death in the accident was filed under this provision before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; the Court upheld the quantum awarded by the High Court but reassessed who was driving the vehicle. (¶¶ 4, 15, 16.1)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Sajeena Ikhbal and Mangla Ram, the Court held that although it ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence in an appeal under Article 136, it may examine the record to consider a challenge that the findings of the Tribunal or High Court are perverse, replete with error apparent on the face of the record or manifestly wrong, and did so here. (¶¶ 10, 11, 15)
- Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860A criminal case under these provisions, along with offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, was registered against the minor and his father on the complainant's FIR; the Court noted that the complainant himself conceded in cross-examination that the father was driving and that the complaint was registered against the minor on the basis of a statement provided by the police. (¶¶ 3, 8.1, 12.4, 13.3)
Held
- In an appeal under Article 136 the Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence, but it can examine the evidence on record to consider a challenge that the findings of the Tribunal or the High Court are perverse, replete with error apparent on the face of the record or manifestly wrong. On that footing the Court re-evaluated the evidence on the identity of the driver. (¶¶ 10, 11, 15)
- The finding that the minor Appellant No. 2 was driving was perverse: PW1 (the widow) admitted she had not witnessed the accident; PW3 (the complainant and eyewitness) conceded in cross-examination that the minor's father was driving; RW3, an eyewitness named in the chargesheet, deposed that an adult was driving and the minor was merely seated beside him; and the owner and the father consistently deposed that the father was driving. In the absence of any credible evidence of the minor's involvement, the claim against him was untenable and the courts below had misdirected themselves in recording a contrary finding. (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4)
- The finding of the courts below was set aside to the extent that it held the minor was involved; the deceased lost his life due to the negligence of the minor's father, who was in fact driving the vehicle, while the minor was merely a passenger. The compensation awarded by the High Court was upheld, but since the minor was absolved, the insurer was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and the direction permitting it to recover from the owner and driver was set aside. (¶¶ 15.4, 16, 16.1)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Appellant No. 2 (the minor) absolved of any involvement in the accident. Compensation of Rs. 21,82,800 with interest at 6% per annum as awarded by the High Court upheld; the insurer (Respondent No. 4) to pay it to the claimants, and the pay-and-recover direction against the owner and driver set aside. No order as to costs.