Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Reappreciation of Evidence – Scope of interference by Supreme Court – Findings of the lower courts being perverse or manifestly wrong warranted re-evaluation.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Claim Petition – Compensation – Principle of “Pay and Recover” – Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,74,088/- with 6% interest – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 21,82,800/- with 6% interest – Supreme Court upheld the enhanced compensation while setting aside the recovery direction against the vehicle’s owner.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 279, 304-A – Rash and Negligent Driving – Minor Driver’s Liability – Allegations of a minor driving the offending vehicle found unsubstantiated – Witness testimony and documentary evidence confirmed the vehicle was driven by the minor’s father.

The Supreme Court held that there was no direct or substantive evidence proving the minor’s involvement in driving the vehicle. The findings of the lower courts on this issue were deemed perverse and set aside. The enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court was upheld. The liability of the insurance company to pay the awarded compensation remained intact, but the direction for recovery from the vehicle’s owner was quashed.

Legal Maxims – Pay and Recover – Contributory Negligence

ISSUES: a) Whether the minor (Appellant No. 2) was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident? b) Whether the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court was justified?

RATIO: A minor’s involvement in an accident must be supported by cogent and unequivocal evidence. In the absence of such proof, liability cannot be attributed. Enhanced compensation awarded for loss suffered must reflect just and fair consideration of dependency and the circumstances of the claimants.

SUBJECTS: Motor Vehicle Accident, Compensation, Minor’s Liability, Rash Driving, Pay and Recover, Contributory Negligence, Enhanced Compensation, Tribunal, High Court, Supreme Court.