Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5764 OF 2008

MEERA DEVI & ANR. ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

H.R.T.C. & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

N.V.RAMANA,J.

1.The  appellants  by  way  of  this  appeal  has  

impugned the judgment dated 27.03.2006 passed  

by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla  

in FAO No. 441 of 2003 whereby the amount of  

compensation  awarded  by  the  Motor  Accident  

Claims  Tribunal,  Mandi  (for  short,  ‘the  

Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 58 of 2001 was  

C.A. No. 5764 of 2008 Page 1 of 7

Page 2

reduced from Rs.3,17,200/- to Rs.1,58,600/- on  

the ground of contributory negligence.  

2.On 31.05.2001, the deceased Upamnyu, who was  

the  only  son  of  the  appellants  herein,  was  

driving scooter having registration No. HP-28-

215 from Mandi side towards Sarkaghat.  When he  

reached at a place known as Nabahi, an accident  

took  place between  the said  scooter and  bus  

having  registration  No.  HP-28-715,  which  was  

being  driven  by  respondent  No.  3  herein,  

namely, Gian Chand, driver in H.R.T.C., Region  

Sakarghat, Mandi, H.P.  Since the deceased got  

injured in that accident, he was taken to C.HC.  

Sakarghat  and  thereafter  when  he  was  being  

taken to PGI Chandigarh, he died on his way.  

3.The appellants claimed that the said accident  

had occurred due to rash and negligent driving  

of respondent No. 3 herein, who was driving the  

bus  in  high  speed.   It  was  averred  by  the  

appellants  that  the  deceased,  who  was  a  

C.A. No. 5764 of 2008 Page 2 of 7

Page 3

student,  was  also  doing  agriculture  and  

household work earning Rs.4,000/- per month and  

they  being  parents  of  the  deceased  were  

dependant upon him.  With these averments, the  

appellants filed a claim petition under Section  

166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,  

‘the  said  Act’)  on  21.07.2001  and  sought  

compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs.  The  

respondents  contested  the  claim  of  the  

appellants on the ground that respondent No. 3  

on seeing the deceased coming on scooter from  

the opposite side at a high speed had stopped  

the bus and when the scooter collided with the  

bumper of the bus, the bus was in a stationary  

condition.

4.The  Tribunal  vide  award  dated  01.07.20013,  

while relying on the testimony of PW-3 Lekh Ram  

and other evidence placed on record, returned a  

categorical finding that the said accident has  

taken place due to rash and negligent driving  

C.A. No. 5764 of 2008 Page 3 of 7

Page 4

of the driver of the bus as the bus driver did  

not blow the horn at the site where there is a  

curve  and,  thus,  awarded  compensation  of  

Rs.3,17,200/- along with interest.  

5.Against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal,  

the respondents filed an appeal under Section  

173 of the said Act before the High Court of  

Himachal  Pradesh  at  Shimla,  which  was  

registered  as  FAO  No.  441  of  2003.   Vide  

impugned  judgment  dated  27.03.2006,  the  High  

Court  held that  since the  deceased not  even  

being  18  years’  old  could  not  have  been  

permitted to drive the scooter, the accident in  

question  occurred  due  to  contributory  

negligence both on the part of the scooterist  

and the bus driver in equal measure and, thus,  

reduced  the  amount  of  compensation  from  

Rs.3,17,200/- to Rs.1,58,600/-.  The appellants  

have come in appeal against this judgment dated  

27.03.2006.  

C.A. No. 5764 of 2008 Page 4 of 7

Page 5

6.Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  

that  the  High  Court,  in  the  absence  of  any  

cogent  material  placed  on  record,  erred  in  

holding that the accident occurred due to the  

contributory negligence of the driver of the  

bus and the deceased scooterist.  

7.On the other hand, learned senior counsel for  

the respondents vehemently contended that the  

High  Court  was  justified  in  coming  to  the  

aforesaid  conclusion  of  modifying  the  

compensation so awarded as well as not taking  

cognizance of the testimony of PW-3 Lekh Ram.  

8.We  have gone  through the  material placed  on  

record  and  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.  

9.It is not in dispute that the deceased was the  

only son of his parents, i.e., the appellants  

C.A. No. 5764 of 2008 Page 5 of 7

Page 6

herein.  It is also not in dispute that when  

the collusion between the scooter and the bus  

took place on the fateful day at a place known  

as Nabahi, the deceased was driving scooter on  

his  left  side  towards  Sarkaghat  from  Mandi  

side.  Admittedly, at the site where there was  

a curve, the bus driver did not blow the horn  

and the bus was being driven at a very high  

speed.   All  this  is  corroborated  from  the  

testimony of PW-3 Lekh Ram, who is stated to be  

an eye witness to the accident and not related  

to the deceased scooterist.   

10.To prove the contributory negligence, there must  

be cogent evidence.  In the instant case, there is  

no specific evidence to prove that the accident has  

taken place due to rash and negligent driving of  

the deceased scooterist.  In the absence of any  

cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory  

negligence, the said doctrine of common law cannot  

be applied in the present case.  We are, thus, of  

C.A. No. 5764 of 2008 Page 6 of 7

Page 7

the view that the reasoning given by the High Court  

has no basis and the compensation awarded by the  

Tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and  

circumstances of the case.  

11.In  view  of  above,  we  allow  the  appeal.  

Accordingly,  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  

Court dated  27.03.2006  is set aside and the award  

of the Tribunal dated 01.07.20013 is upheld, with  

no orders as to costs.

.............C.J.I. (P. Sathasivam)

  .................J. (Ranjan Gogoi)

.................J. (N.V. Ramana)

New Delhi; March 10, 2014. C.A.No.5764 of 2008

C.A. No. 5764 of 2008 Page 7 of 7