| Headnote |
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.140 – When not applicable – Person died in a motor accident – Claim petition by respondentsheirs of the deceased – Tribunal decided the petition in favour of the respondents holding that the motorcycle at the relevant time was being driven by appellant No.2 and he had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving and granted compensation – High Court reversed the said finding recorded by Tribunal, however, maintained the liability fastened on appellants as regards the compensation – Plea of appellants that in view of finding of High Court that it was a case of contributory negligence as the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle, at the most respondents would be entitled to compensation on ‘no fault liability principle’ u/s.140 –Held: High Court committed manifest error in reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal – Respondents through their witnesses established that the motorcycle was owned by appellant No.1 (father of appellant No.2) and on the day when the accident took place the motorcycle was driven by appellant no.2 while the deceased was sitting in the middle and DW-2 was behind him – High Court did not discard the said version as untruthful, however, selectively relied on the statements of interested witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants – No infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal – Once the finding of High Court that the motorcycle was, in fact, driven by deceased becomes doubtful, the question of applying s.140 of the Act does not arise – In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is warranted – Constitution of India – Art.136.Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim under – Role of Court – Discussed.Dismissing the appeal, the CourtHELD : 1.1 In cases where the accident occurs without any fault of the owner of the vehicle or the fault of the other vehicle, the liability to pay compensation, at best, must be determined in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court in the present case overturned the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the motorcycle was driven by appellant No.2 at the relevant time when the accident occurred and, instead, concluded that the motorcycle was, in fact, driven by deceased. In that sense, the accident occurred neither due to the fault of the owner of the vehicle (appellant No.1) who, admittedly, was not present or travelling on the motorcycle at the relevant time nor due to the fault of any other vehicle. However, on a deeper scrutiny it is found that the High Court committed manifest error, an error apparent on the face of the record, in reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the motorcycle was being driven by appellant No.2 (son of appellant No.1 – owner of the motorcycle) and had caused accident due to rash and negligent driving. Though, the respondents–claimants have neither come up in cross appeal against the reduction of the compensation amount on the finding of contributory negligence nor have they filed any cross objection regarding reversing of the crucial finding of fact by the High Court. However, it is well settled that in motor accident claim cases, the Court cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach but has to discharge the role of parens patriae. [Para 8][515-C-G]1.2 The respondents, through their witnesses established that the motorcycle was owned by appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 used to drive that motorcycle himself. The appellants did not even produce any title of evidence, except the bare words of the appellants and their witnesses (DW-2) and (DW-3) who were obviously interested witnesses. The view taken by the Tribunal was not only a possible view but also in conformity with the scale to be applied for appreciation of evidence in motor accident cases namely preponderance of probabilities. [Paras 9, 11][516-E-F; 518-D]1.3 The entirety of evidence was not analysed by the High Court, including the material evidence of witnesses who had seen appellant No.2 driving the motorcycle and deceased sitting behind him as pillion rider. The High Court, however, selectively relied on the statements of interested witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants. The eye witnesses examined by the claimants were neither discarded as untruthful nor did the High Court found any contradiction in the version given by them. Their version remained unshaken during the cross-examination. As such, the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal by solely relying on the version of interested witnesses examined by the appellants in defence. On the other hand, the analysis of the totality of evidence by the Tribunal is consistent with the principle of preponderance of probabilities. [Para 12][519-C, E, G-H; 520-A] 1.4 Once this finding of the High Court becomes doubtful, the principal argument of the appellants fail, in which case the question of applying Section 140 of the Act does not arise. There is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the motorcycle was driven by appellant No.2 at the relevant time and had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving resulting in injuries to all the three persons travelling on the motorcycle, including the deceased who succumbed to the injuries before being admitted in the Hospital. No serious argument was made about the quantum of compensation determined by the High Court providing for future prospects and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, including applying the multiplier of 16. Even if any argument in that behalf was available to the appellants, as the amount involved is insignificant and the difference between the quantum determined by the Tribunal and the quantum determined by the High Court is only marginal (the Tribunal determined Rs.3,85,000/- and the High Court determined Rs.3,86,500/-), interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is declined. At the same time, it is clarified that the justness of the finding of the High Court regarding contributory negligence against the deceased and providing for deduction of 50% compensation amount therefor, has not been examined as the respondents did not assail that part of the finding of the High Court. [Para 13][520- B-F] 1.5 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is warranted. [Para 14][520-G] |
