Citation: 2025 INSC 1424
Case: Radha Thevannoor v. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 8 December 2025
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Background of the Case
The case arose out of a fatal road accident that occurred at around 2:30 a.m. on 17 November 2014 on a four-lane National Highway. The deceased, who was driving a car, died on the spot after colliding with a truck. The appellant, Radha Thevannoor, was the wife of the deceased.
An FIR was registered based on the statement of the truck driver, alleging negligence on the part of the deceased. However, no further investigation was conducted since the accused (the car driver) had died.
Tribunal and High Court Findings
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) relied on the testimony of an eyewitness (PW-3), a mechanic who had a shop near the accident site, and held that the truck driver was solely negligent. Accordingly, full compensation was awarded to the claimants.
On appeal, the Kerala High Court reversed this finding and attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased car driver, thereby reducing the compensation by half. The High Court relied largely on the FIR and questioned the credibility of the eyewitness.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased despite credible eyewitness evidence and supporting material.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence on record and made the following key observations:
- The eyewitness (PW-3) clearly deposed that the truck was being driven rashly on the right lane and suddenly swerved to the left, causing the car, which was travelling on the left lane, to collide with it.
- The inspection report showed major damage on the left side of the truck, corroborating the eyewitness account.
- The truck driver’s claim that the accident was caused due to a tyre burst was not supported by the inspection report.
- The truck driver, though impleaded as a party, remained ex-parte and did not deny negligence.
- The police officer (RW-1) admitted during cross-examination that the spot mahazar supported negligence on the part of the truck driver.
The Court held that the High Court had erred in discarding credible eyewitness testimony and attributing contributory negligence based on mere surmises and conjectures.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the finding of 50% contributory negligence imposed by the High Court.
- Restored the Tribunal’s award granting full compensation to the claimants.
- Upheld the High Court’s deletion of ₹1,60,000 awarded under “love and affection”, noting that compensation for loss of consortium had already been granted.
- Directed payment of the balance compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum as originally ordered by the Tribunal.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that:
- Credible eyewitness testimony, supported by physical evidence, cannot be ignored lightly.
- Contributory negligence cannot be imposed without clear and cogent evidence.
- Courts must avoid speculative reasoning, especially in motor accident compensation cases where victims’ families depend on timely and just relief.
The ruling provides important guidance on the evaluation of negligence and strengthens the rights of claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Read Case Judgment
