IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4773 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3370/2003]
SUSHEELABAI AND ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
:VERSUS:
BASAVARAJ AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
One Revanayya died in an accident which took place on 11.9.1995. He,
admittedly, was shown as the owner of the tractor which was the vehicle involved in
the accident. Indisputably, the insurance policy was taken in the name of the
deceased as also in the name of one Basavaraj. The Insurance policy was an Act
policy, meaning thereby the insured had a third party liability only.
A claim petition was filed by the appellants herein claiming compensation for
the death of the said Revanayya, on the premise that he was not the owner of the
vehicle but was merely one of the labourers. The said plea of the appellant had been
rejected by both the Courts below.
-2-
Mr. Raja Venkatappa Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal as also the High Court committed
a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as they failed to take into
consideration the salient features of this case, namely, (i) the policy of insurance was
in two names, (ii) the deed of partition in terms whereof the tractor in question fell in
the share of brother the deceased (iii) oral evidences adduced on behalf of the parties
that he was merely a coolie in the tractor and not the owner thereof.
Apart from the fact that the concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by
the Tribunal as also the High Court, another circumstance which must be taken note
of by us is that at a later date, the tractor was transferred in the name of appellant
No.1 – the wife of the deceased. Furthermore, in any event, the tractor being a vehicle
with one seat, nobody else apart from the driver thereof could travel in the tractor.
This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Dhanraj vs.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2004 (8) SCC 553.
-3-
For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is
dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
…………………..J
(S.B. SINHA)
…………………..J
(DEEPAK VERMA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 24, 2009.