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)

O R D E R

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.