Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2570 OF 2008

LACHOO RAM & ORS.          ... APPELLANT

VS.

HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.  ... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned  

counsel  for  the  respondent-Himachal  Road  Transport  

Corporation.  

2. The appellants are claimants.  They are aggrieved by  the judgment and order under appeal whereby the High  

Court reversed the findings given by the Motor Accident  

Claims Tribunal (II) at Shimla in MACT No. 68-S/2 of  

1995  and  has  set  aside  the  Award  dated  30.11.1998

Page 2

whereby  the  appellants  were  allowed  compensation  of  

Rs.2,74,000/-  including  the  interim  compensation,  if  

already awarded to them along with interest at the rate  

of 12% p.a. from the date of the claim petition.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants  learned High Court was not justified in substituting its  

own  findings  in  place  of  those  of  the  Tribunal  by  

disbelieving  statement  of  PW.2  Shobha  Ram  and  PW.6  

Hemant  Kumar.  The  main  criticism  of  the  High  Court  

judgment is on the ground that the case should have been  

decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities  

as  was  done  by  the  Tribunal  whereas  High  Court  has  

required a much higher degree of proof as if it was  

dealing with a criminal trial.  The order under appeal  

has also been criticized on the ground that reasonings  

are perverse and that the High Court failed to keep in  

view  the  apparent  incorrectness  of  the  defence  plea  

which was of total denial of the case of  

the  claimants  that  the  bus  of  the  respondent  was  

involved in the accident with the motor cycle of the

Page 3

deceased and the deceased died due to such accident.  

The judgment of the High Court is further in criticism  

on the ground that the Court has not given due weightage  

to the fact that the bus and its driver were detained  

almost immediately after the occurrence and FIR was also  

registered against the driver.

4. On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-Corporation has taken a counter stand that as  

a  First Appellate  Court the  High Court  was bound  to  

enter into evidence, evaluate it carefully and give its  

own findings with reasons for the same.  According to  

him the reasons are sound for the view taken by the High  

Court which has held that there is no direct evidence to  

show that the bus was involved in the accident and even  

if that is presumed, the evidence and the circumstances  

show that negligence was on the part of the deceased in  

trying to overtake the bus on a very narrow road in the  

town of Shimla immediately after the bus has started  

moving when the traffic signal turned green.

Page 4

5. We  have  carefully  gone  through  the  materials  on  record  and  the  appeal  including  counter  affidavit  as  

well as statement of case of both the parties.

6. According to the case of the appellants/claimants  the deceased Dalip Singh lost his life immediately after  

the accident as a result of rash and negligent driving  

of a bus belonging to the Corporation driven by Lachoo  

Ram respondent no.2 on 12.07.1995.  It is also their  

case that the accident occurred near traffic lights on  

the narrow Cart Road at the point near Gurudwara Singh  

Sabha and State Bus Terminal, Shimla, which is hardly  

100-150 yards from the Gurudwara.  Both, the deceased on  

a motor cycle and the bus had stopped at the traffic  

light.   When  the  light  turned  green,  the  vehicles  

started.  The respondent no.2 allegedly moved the bus  

very  fast  in  a  rash  and  negligent  manner  and  struck  

against the motorcycle by its side. The deceased fell  

down and was fatally wounded leading to immediate death.

7. The case of the respondent is that there was no  accident involving the bus of the Corporation and in the

Page 5

facts of the case there could be no question of rash and  

negligent driving attributed to respondent no.2.  The  

claim for compensation was resisted on both the grounds  

– One, that the bus was not involved in the accident and  

second, that the accident did not take place due to rash  

and  negligent  driving  of  respondent  no.2.   The  

registration of the FIR against the driver soon after  

the accident was not denied and only a plea was taken  

that the criminal case was registered falsely and in  

fact the deceased was never hit by the bus.  Further  

defence was taken that the deceased was an untrained  

driver and he himself fell down from the motor cycle and  

died due to his own fault.

8. The evidence and the materials as discussed by the  Tribunal and the High Court lead to the conclusion that  

if the principle of preponderance of probabilities is  

applied, the Tribunal was right in giving a finding that  

the  motor  cycle  of  the  deceased  and  the  bus  were  

involved in the accident.  Even the High Court has not  

totally overruled that possibility as is clear from the

Page 6

observation in the second paragraph of its judgment on  

page 10 of the paper book in the following words:

“However, even if it is held that there was some  collision  the  negligence  is  that  of  the  motor  cyclist himself since he could not and should not  have tried to overtake the bus on the red light.  The road at the red light is extremely narrow and  from  a  standing  position  to  suddenly  try  to  overtake the bus is asking for trouble.”

9. Although the High Court has given a tentative view,  as noted above, for the reasons that there were some  

witnesses present near the place of occurrence and they  

have claimed that the accident was between the motor  

cycle  and  the  bus  and  FIR  was  filed  soon  after  the  

occurrence against the driver, we have no hesitation in  

accepting the submission that on this issue the High  

Court should have accepted the finding of the Tribunal,  

specially in view of its own observation noted above.

10. But  simply  the  involvement  of  the  bus  in  the  accident  cannot  make  the  respondent  liable  to  pay  

compensation  unless  it  can  be  held  on  the  basis  of  

materials on record that the accident was caused by rash  

and negligent act of the driver-respondent no.2.  On

Page 7

this  issue,  on  comparing  the  reasons  given  by  the  

Tribunal while discussing the issue no.1 and those given  

by the High Court on pages 10 and 11 of the paper book,  

we find the reasons given by the High Court to be much  

more cogent and acceptable in coming to the conclusion  

noted above.  Since the bus was standing at the red  

light and on being asked, soon after starting from the  

traffic signal it stopped within 100 to 150 yards, it  

has rightly been reasoned that the bus could not have  

started on a high speed. The road at the place of the  

accident was admittedly very narrow and PW.2, who has  

been found reliable by the Tribunal as well as by the  

High Court and was present on the spot, has not claimed  

that the bus driver had given a signal to the deceased  

motor cyclist to overtake him. This witness could not  

see  the  actual  accident  because  at  that  time  the  

motorcyclist, in an effort to overtake the bus had gone  

on its right side and was not visible and therefore he  

could only hear the sound of crash.  It is not the case  

of any witnesses that the bus driver took any sudden

Page 8

turn while proceeding forward from the traffic signal or  

that he swerved the bus to the right side.

11. In the facts of the case it is not found possible to  accept  the  contention  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants/claimants that the accident was on account of  

rash or negligent driving by the driver-the respondent  

no.2.   In  that  view  of  the  matter  it  is  not  found  

possible to give any relief to the appellants.

12. The appeal is dismissed but without any costs.

     ……………………………………………C.J.I.   (P. SATHASIVAM)

……………………………………………………J.  (RANJAN GOGOI)

……………………………………………………J.  (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)

New Delhi, January 28, 2014.