Kiran Raj

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has partially allowed an appeal in a case concerning a motor accident, holding that a minor who was previously held liable for causing the fatal incident was not involved in the accident. The Court examined the evidence and determined that there was no direct proof establishing that the minor was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, it upheld the compensation awarded to the victim’s family and directed that the insurance company shall be liable to pay the amount without seeking recovery from the minor.

The Division Bench set aside the findings of the lower courts regarding the minor’s involvement, stating that the evidence on record did not substantiate his liability. The Court directed that the compensation awarded by the High Court should be maintained but specified that the insurance company shall bear the liability without recovering it from the minor.

The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on January 13, 2016, in Vijaya Nagar, Belagavi, where a Bolero vehicle struck and fatally injured the victim. According to witness testimony, the deceased was standing by the roadside when the vehicle, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with him, dragging him a short distance and causing his immediate death. A claim petition was subsequently filed by the victim’s family under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal examined the evidence and determined that the accident resulted from the actionable negligence of the minor, who was allegedly driving the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 7,74,088 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The victim’s family appealed to the Karnataka High Court, seeking an enhancement of the compensation, while the vehicle’s owner challenged the award, contesting both the liability and the amount granted.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal of the victim’s family, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 21,82,800 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization. The High Court dismissed the vehicle owner’s appeal and directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced compensation, with the right to recover the amount from the owner in the same proceedings under the principle of ‘Pay and Recover.’

The vehicle’s owner and the minor then approached the Supreme Court, contending that the minor was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and had been wrongfully implicated. They argued that the vehicle was being driven by the father of the minor and that there was no evidence to prove otherwise. The appellants also submitted that the charges filed against the minor were based on a false police complaint and that the victim’s own negligence contributed to the accident.

The respondents, consisting of the victim’s family, argued that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence and established the negligence of the minor. They submitted that the compensation awarded was justified considering the financial dependency of the victim’s widow and mentally disabled son. The respondents maintained that the accident occurred due to reckless driving and that the minor was responsible.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented before the Tribunal and High Court, including witness testimonies and documentary materials. It stated that "there is no substantive or direct evidence establishing the involvement of Appellant No. 2/Minor in the accident in question." The Court noted that key witnesses, including a friend of the deceased who was present at the scene, conceded during cross-examination that the vehicle was driven by the minor’s father and not the minor himself.

The Court further stated that "a thorough examination of the record makes it clear that the following crucial aspects of the evidence indicate that it was the father of Appellant No. 2 who was driving the vehicle at the material time, and not Appellant No. 2/Minor." It referred to the testimony of a chargesheet witness who affirmed that the vehicle was being driven by an adult and that the minor was merely seated beside him. The Court found that the claim against the minor was "untenable and unsubstantiated."

In its final directives, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, setting aside the findings against the minor and absolving him of any liability. The Court held that "the Respondent Insurance Company shall not be absolved of its liability and the direction regarding recovery by it is set aside." The Supreme Court maintained that the compensation awarded by the High Court shall remain unchanged but clarified that the insurance company shall be responsible for its payment and further stated that "The Insurance Company shall not be entitled to any recovery from the owner and driver of the vehicle in question."

Case Title: Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 290

Case Number: SLP (C) Nos. 1970-1971 of 2023

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

[Read/Download order]