Supreme Court Holds Minor Passenger Not Driver, Upholds Compensation But Bars Insurer’s Recovery From Owner

A bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1970-1971 of 2023 challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment which had enhanced compensation in a fatal motor accident claim and affirmed findings of rash and negligent driving. The appeals were preferred by the registered owner of the offending vehicle and others against a common order dated 25.05.2022 in M.F.A. Nos. 101253 and 101435 of 2019 (MV-D).

The Court allowed leave and held that while the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court was sustainable and was to be maintained, the lower courts erred in holding that Appellant No. 2, a minor at the time, was the driver. The Court found on reappreciation of evidence that the father of Appellant No. 2 was driving and that the minor was “merely a passenger.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. 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.” The Court therefore partly allowed the appeals to the limited extent of absolving the minor of any liability, upheld the compensation of Rs. 21,82,800/- (with interest) as awarded by the High Court, directed the insurer to pay the award but held that the insurer could not recover the amount from the owner or driver.

Background The dispute arose from a road accident on 13.01.2016 in Belagavi in which the deceased, Vijay Jumnalkar, was struck by a Bolero (KA-22-P-1449) and died on the spot. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the widow and dependent family members seeking Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found actionable negligence and awarded Rs. 7,74,088/-. The High Court partly allowed enhancement to Rs. 21,82,800/- and applied the “pay and recover” principle by directing the insurer to pay and thereafter recover from the owner.

On appeal to this Court the principal issue was identification of the driver. Appellants/owner contended that the minor was a passenger and that the driver was the father of the minor; respondents said the minor drove rashly. The Court reviewed witness testimony, charge-sheet material and judicial orders and observed that the lower courts had committed a “grave error in failing to properly appreciate the evidence” and recorded findings that were perverse insofar as they implicated the minor. The Court relied on contemporaneous witness statements, cross-examination admissions and the charge-sheet eyewitness to conclude the father drove and the minor had no role. The Court referenced precedent on reappreciation of evidence in Article 136 appeals (including Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George) to justify limited re-evaluation of testimony. The final result: the appeals were partly allowed to the extent of setting aside findings against Appellant No. 2/Minor; the High Court’s award of compensation was upheld; the insurer was directed to pay the award but was not permitted to recover from the owner/driver; no order as to costs was made.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 290 Case Title: Sachin Yallappa Usulkar & Ors. v. Vijayata & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]