REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2269 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.24432/10)

Kusum Lata and others   ...Appellant(s)

- Versus -

Satbir and others ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  claimant,  

learned counsel for the insurance company  

and also the learned counsel for respondent  

nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of  

the offending vehicle.  

1

3. In  this  case  the  claim  for  compensation  

filed  by  the  appellants  was  concurrently  

denied both by the Motor Accident Claims  

Tribunal  (for  short,  ‘the  Tribunal’)  as  

also by the High Court.   

4. The material facts of the case are that on  

12th January, 2005 while Surender Kumar, the  

victim, was going on foot, he was hit by a  

vehicle  from  behind  as  the  vehicle  was  

driven rashly and negligently and was also  

in  a  high  speed.   The  victim  sustained  

several  injuries  and  was  rushed  to  the  

hospital and was declared dead.  After the  

said incident the appellants, namely, Kusum  

Lata, wife of the victim and three of his  

children, two are minor daughters and one  

is a minor son, filed a claim petition.   

5. When  the  matter  came  up  before  the  

Tribunal, the Tribunal in its award dated  

2

14.6.2006  framed  three  issues  for  

adjudication.  Of those three issues, since  

the Tribunal came to a finding against the  

appellants on the first issue, the other  

findings of the Tribunal in the second and  

third issue were, according to Tribunal, of  

no avail to the appellants. On the first  

issue the Tribunal came to a finding that  

the  involvement  of  the  offending  vehicle  

being  tempo  No.HR-34-8010  has  not  been  

proved  and  since  on  this  issue  the  

Tribunal’s  finding  went  against  the  

appellants,  no  compensation  was  awarded.  

On an appeal filed against the said award,  

the  High  Court  by  the  impugned  judgment  

dated 21.5.2010 also affirmed the finding  

of the Tribunal.   

6. The main reason why both the Tribunal and  

the  High  Court  reached  their  respective  

findings that vehicle No.HR-34-8010 was not  

3

involved  in  the  accident  are  primarily  

because of the fact that in the FIR which  

was lodged by one Ashok Kumar, brother of  

the  victim,  neither  the  number  of  the  

vehicle  nor  the  name  of  the  driver  was  

mentioned.   

7. Admittedly, the facts were that the brother  

of the deceased, Ashok Kumar while walking  

on the road heard some noise and then saw  

that  a  white  colour  tempo  had  hit  his  

brother  and  sped  away.   Immediately,  he  

found  that  his  brother,  being  seriously  

injured, was in an urgent need of medical  

aid and he took him to the hospital.  Under  

such circumstances it may be natural for  

him not to note the number of the offending  

vehicle. That may be perfectly consistent  

with normal human conduct. Therefore, that  

by  itself  cannot  justify  the  findings  

reached by the Tribunal and which have been  

4

affirmed by the High Court.  In the present  

case, evidence has come on record from the  

deposition  of  one  Dheeraj  Kumar,  who  

clearly proved the number of the vehicle.  

The evidence of Dheeraj Kumar is that he  

was going along with one Ashok Kumar on a  

scooter  to  know  the  condition  of  one  of  

their relative in Mahendergarh Hospital. As  

they  reached  at  turning  at  Mahendergarh  

road  a  tempo  bearing  No.  HR-34-8010 of  white  colour  being  driven  in  a  rash  and  

negligent  manner  came  from  behind  and  

overtook their scooter. Dheeraj Kumar was  

not driving the scooter. Dheeraj Kumar saw  

that the tempo hit Surender, the victim, as  

a  result  of  which  he  fell  down  but  the  

tempo  did  not  stop  after  the  accident.  

However, the evidence of Dheeraj Kumar is  

that they followed the same and caught the  

driver.   On  their  asking,  the  driver  

disclosed his name as Satbir son of Shri  

5

Ram  Avtar.  Thereafter,  they  went  to  

Mahendergarh Hospital and on the next day  

when they were returning, they found police  

and other persons were present at the spot.  

Dheeraj Kumar told the name of the driver  

and gave the number of the tempo to the  

police.  Dheeraj Kumar claims to have seen  

the  incident  with  his  own  eyes.   When  

Dheeraj Kumar was cross-examined, he stated  

that the deceased Surender is not related  

to him nor was he his neighbour.  He was  

his co-villager.  Dheeraj Kumar also told  

that  he  knows  the  driver  of  the  vehicle  

bearing  No.  HR-34-8010.   He  denied  all  

suggestions that he was giving his evidence  

to help the victim.  Both the Tribunal and  

the High Court have refused to accept the  

presence of Dheeraj Kumar as his name was  

not disclosed in the FIR by the brother of  

the victim.    

6

8. This  Court  is  unable  to  appreciate  the  

aforesaid approach of the Tribunal and the  

High Court.  This Court is of the opinion  

that  when  a  person  is  seeing  that  his  

brother, being knocked down by a speeding  

vehicle, was suffering in pain and was in  

need of immediate medical attention, that  

person  is  obviously  under  a  traumatic  

condition.  His first attempt will be to  

take  his  brother  to  a  hospital  or  to  a  

doctor.   It  is  but  natural  for  such  a  

person not to be conscious of the presence  

of any person in the vicinity especially  

when Dheeraj did not stop at the spot after  

the  accident  and  gave  a  chase  to  the  

offending  vehicle.   Under  such  mental  

strain if the brother of the victim forgot  

to take down the number of the offending  

vehicle it was also not unnatural.   

7

9. There is no reason why the Tribunal and the  

High  Court  would  ignore  the  otherwise  

reliable  evidence  of  Dheeraj  Kumar.  In  

fact, no cogent reason has been assigned  

either by the Tribunal or by the High Court  

for  discarding  the  evidence  of  Dheeraj  

Kumar.  The  so-called  reason  that  as  the  

name of Dheeraj Kumar was not mentioned in  

the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj  

Kumar to see the incident, is not a proper  

assessment  of  the  fact-situation  in  this  

case.  It is well known that in a case  

relating  to  motor  accident  claims,  the  

claimants  are  not  required  to  prove  the  

case as it is required to be done in a  

criminal trial.  The Court must keep this  

distinction in mind.

10. Reference in this connection may be made to  

the decision of this Court in  Bimla Devi  and  others v.  Himachal  Road  Transport  

8

Corporation and others [(2009) 13 SCC 530],  in which the relevant observation on this  

point  has  been  made  and  which  is  very  

pertinent and is quoted below:-

“In a situation of this nature, the  Tribunal  has  rightly  taken  a  holistic  view of the matter.  It was necessary to  be borne in mind that strict proof of an  accident caused by a particular bus in a  particular manner may not be possible to  be done by the claimants.  The claimants  were merely to establish their case on  the  touchstone  of  preponderance  of  probability.   The  standard  of  proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt  could  not  have  been applied.”

11. In respect of the finding reached by the  

Tribunal on the assessment of compensation,  

this Court finds that the Tribunal has used  

the multiplier of 16, even though the age  

of the deceased has been determined to be  

29.  We find that the Tribunal erred by  

applying the multiplier of 16.  However,  

considering  the  age  of  the  victim,  the  

multiplier of 17 should be applied in view  

of  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Sarla  9

Verma (Smt) and others v.  Delhi Transport  Corporation and another reported in (2009)  6 SCC 121,  and the chart at page 139.   It  

is not in dispute that in the instant case  

the claim for compensation has been filed  

under  Section  166  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  

Act.   This  Court  finds  that  if  the  

multiplier of 17 is applied then the amount  

comes  to  Rs.3,93,428.45  apart  from  the  

amount of funeral expenses and the amount  

granted for loss of consortium. Taking all  

these together the amount comes to a little  

more than four lacs of rupees.   

12. The  Court,  however,  in  exercise  of  its  

power under Article 142 and considering the  

number  of  claimants,  of  which  three  are  

minor children, is of the opinion that for  

doing complete justice in the case and by  

taking a broad and comprehensive view of  

the  matter,  an  amount  of  Rs.6  lacs  

1

including  the  amounts  of  consortium  and  

funeral  expenses  would  meet  the  ends  of  

justice.  The Court, therefore, grants a  

compensation of Rs.6 lacs considering the  

fact  that  the  victim  was  the  sole  wage  

earner  in  the  family  and  he  left  behind  

three minor children and a widow.  The said  

amount is to be paid along with interest @  

7%  from  the  date  of  presentation  of  the  

claim  petition  till  the  date  of  actual  

payment.   

13. In respect of the dispute about licence,  

the  Tribunal  has  held  and,  in  our  view  

rightly, that the insurance company has to  

pay and then may recover it from the owner  

of the vehicle.  This Court is affirming  

that direction in view of the principles  

laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this  

Court  in  the  case  of  National  Insurance  Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others  reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297.

1

14. The  appeal  is,  therefore,  allowed.   The  

judgments  of  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  

Court are set aside.  The insurance company  

is to pay the aforesaid amount in the form  

of a bank draft in the name of appellant  

no.1 with interest as aforesaid within a  

period of six weeks from date and deposit  

the same in the Tribunal. This direction  

should  be  strictly  complied  with  by  the  

Insurance Company.   

15. This  Court  directs  the  Tribunal  to  take  

steps  for  opening  a  bank  account  in  the  

name  of  the  appellant  no.1  in  a  

Nationalised  Bank  and  deposit  the  demand  

draft in that account. If, however, there  

is  any  bank  account  in  the  name  of  the  

appellant no.1, the demand draft is to be  

deposited in that bank account.

1

16. No costs.  

.......................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) March 02, 2011

1