Page 1

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.. 14731 OF 2015 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.8543 of 2015]

Gian Chand & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

Gurlabh Singh & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ARUN MISHRA, J.

Leave granted.

The appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the High  

Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.862 of 1997  

thereby  dismissing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  claimants  assailing  the  

award dated 8.1.1997 passed in M.A.C.T. No.18/1994.

The claimants  preferred  petition  under  section  166 of  Motor  

Vehicles Act on account of death of Mulakh Raj, aged 25 years, who  

died in an accident involving Bus No.CH-01-G-5152. He boarded the

Page 2

2

said  bus  from  Una  for  Delhi.  Near  Kotli  about  5  kms.  before  

Anandpur  Sahib  the  bus  dashed  a  stationary  tractor  trolley  and  

thereafter  struck against  a  eucalyptus tree and turned turtle.  It  was  

driven  rashly  and  negligently  by  Gurlabh  Singh,  owned  by  

Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. The deceased was the sole bread  

winner  of  the  family,  used  to  earn  Rs.4552  per  month,  was  a  

Headmaster  and in  addition used to  earn  Rs.1000 per  month from  

agriculture.  

The  respondent  driver  contested  the  claim  petition  and  

contended that the accident was not the outcome of rash and negligent  

driving but due to a sudden breaking of belt of spring the accident  

took place. He was not at fault.  

The Transport Undertaking in a separate statement contended  

that when the bus reached near village Solkhain, two scooterists came  

from the opposite side. The scooter was driven rashly and negligently  

and struck the bus on the driver side which was the cause of accident.  

The accident did not take place due to fault of the bus driver.  

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion  

that accident was caused due to sudden breaking of belts of springs for

Page 3

3

which driver could not be said to be at fault. Under no fault liability a  

sum  of  Rs.25,000  had  been  awarded  to  the  claimants.  The  claim  

petition was dismissed. The High Court has affirmed the award hence  

the present appeal before us.  

It was strenuously contended by learned counsel appearing on  

behalf of the appellants that  the courts below have erred in law in  

dismissing the claim petition. Pleas totally at variance from each other  

have been taken by the driver and Transport Undertaking in their reply  

and the statement of mechanic that breaking of belt of springs can take  

place in case brakes are applied all of a sudden, has been ignored. The  

finding recorded by the courts below that the driver did not drive the  

bus rashly and negligently is perverse and deserves to be set aside.  

Suitable compensation be awarded.  

Learned counsel  appearing on behalf  of  the  respondents  has  

supported the award. It was contended that the accident took place due  

to  mechanical  failure  for  which  driver  could  not  be  said  to  be  

responsible. In the absence of rash and negligent driving by the driver  

of the bus liability has rightly not been fastened on the owner and  

driver.

Page 4

4

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perusing  

the evidence and the orders passed by the courts below we are of the  

considered opinion that grave error of law has been committed while  

arriving at the findings as to the method and manner in which accident  

has taken place and as to rash and negligent driving of bus driver.  

There is reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants that the  

bus  was  driven  at  high  speed  and  it  dashed  firstly  against  the  

stationary  tractor  parked  below  the  road  and  thereafter  it  dashed  

against  the  eucalyptus  tree.  The  Transport  Undertaking  has  taken  

totally different plea that the scooterists came from the opposite side  

and dashed against the driver’s side of the bus which was the cause of  

accident.  The  driver  has  not  taken  the  stand  that  any  scooter  was  

involved in the accident. The pleas taken by the driver as well as the  

Transport Undertaking are totally at variance. It is clear that they have  

not come to the tribunal with clean hands.  Even otherwise there is  

nothing to doubt the version of the claimants and their witnesses that  

the bus was driven rashly and negligently. Ram Kishan, PW-3, has  

clearly stated that the bus was driven rashly and it came from Nangal  

side and dashed the stationary tractor  which was parked below the  

road,  and thereafter  the bus dashed eucalyptus tree.  He has clearly

Page 5

5

stated that there were no pits around the place of occurrence. Whereas  

the driver Gurlabh Singh has stated that the bus jumped and owing to  

that belts of springs were broken, as such he lost control of the bus  

and  it  struck  with  the  eucalyptus  tree.  A bare  perusal  of  the  FIR  

substantiates the plea of the claimants and not of the driver. Driver has  

not pleaded in reply that due to road condition the bus jumped all of a  

sudden, and has also suppressed the fact that the bus initially dashed a  

stationary tractor. Thus the version of the driver is not reliable. When  

we come to the statement of the mechanic he has categorically stated  

that the belt of springs could have been broken in case brakes were  

suddenly applied. Thus it appears that the bus driver drove the bus  

rashly and negligently and initially dashed the stationary tractor and  

then a eucalyptus tree. In that process due to application of brakes belt  

of  springs  was  broken.  The  plea  of  Transport  Undertaking  that  a  

scooterist was involved in the accident is totally a false plea and is not  

supported by its driver. In the circumstances there is no escape from  

the conclusion that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner  

by  its  driver.  Apart  from  that  merely  a  mechanical  failure  is  not  

enough to exonerate the Transport Undertaking from its liability in the

Page 6

6

absence of evidence being adduced that the vehicle was maintained  

properly.                              

Coming  to  the  question  of  compensation  to  be  awarded  the  

claimants are the parents. Brothers could not be said to be dependent  

on the earning of the deceased. Considering the fact that the deceased  

was teaching in  a  school,  in  totality  of  facts  and circumstances,  it  

would  be  appropriate  to  award  a  lump  sum  compensation  of  

Rs.7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent  

per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.  

The appeal is allowed. Let the Transport Undertaking deposit  

the amount awarded within a period of three months. No order as to  

costs.

      ………………………..J. (Kurian Joseph)

New Delhi; ……………………….J. December 15, 2015. (Arun Mishra)