ARCHIT SAINI AND ANR. versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 09-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
ARCHIT SAINI AND ANR.
v.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7300-7309 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Fatal accident –
Contributory negligence – Collision of car with the offending vehicle
on the busy road causing death of driver and one person and
injuring two others – Tribunal relied on the evidence of eye-witness
(PW-7) that the offending vehicle, the Gas Tanker was parked in
the middle of road without any indicator or parking lights and it
was a sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Gas Tanker –
High Court modified the award on the finding that it was a case of
contributory negligence and, therefore, the claimants-injured were
entitled to only 50% of total compensation – Held: High Court did
not doubt the evidence of PW-7 as being unreliable nor did it discard
his version that the driver of the car could not spot the parked Gas
Tanker due to the flash lights of the oncoming traffic from the front
side – The site plan did not support the finding that the Gas Tanker
was not parked in the middle of the road – The fact that PW-7 who
was standing on the opposite side of the road at a distance of about
70 feet, could see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of the
road would not discredit his version that the car coming from the
opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to flash lights of
the oncoming traffic from the front side – It is not in dispute that the
road is a busy road – The approach of the High Court in reversing
the well considered finding recorded by the Tribunal on the material
fact, which was supported by the evidence on record, cannot be
countenanced –  The appellants would be entitled to the enhanced
compensation as determined by the High Court in its entirety without
any deduction towards contributory negligence.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that the nature of proof required
in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from
626
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 626
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
the one in criminal cases, which must be beyond any reasonable
doubts. The Tribunal applied the correct test in the analysis of
the evidence before it. Notably, the High Court has not doubted
the evidence of PW-7 as being unreliable nor has it discarded his
version that the driver of the car could not spot the parked Gas
Tanker due to the flash lights of the oncoming traffic from the
front side. Further, the Tribunal also adverted to the legal
presumption against the driver of the Gas Tanker of having parked
his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road. The
Site Plan reinforces the version of PW-7 that the Truck (Gas
Tanker) was parked in the middle of the road but the High Court
opined to the contrary without assigning any reason whatsoever.
The Site Plan filed along with the charge-sheet does not support
the finding recorded by the High Court that the Gas Tanker was
not parked in the middle of the road.  The fact that PW-7 who was
standing on the opposite side of the road at a distance of about
70 feet, could see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of
the road does not discredit his version that the Maruti Car coming
from the opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to
flash lights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. It is not in
dispute that the road is a busy road. In the cross-examination,
neither has any attempt been made to discredit the version of
PW-7 nor has any suggestion been made that no vehicle with
flash lights on was coming from the opposite direction of the
parked Gas Tanker at the relevant time. The approach of the
High Court in reversing the well considered finding recorded by
the Tribunal on the material fact, which was supported by the
evidence on record, cannot be countenanced. The appellants
would be entitled to the enhanced compensation as determined
by the High Court in its entirety without any deduction towards
contributory negligence. The direction given by the High Court
regarding deduction of 50% of the total compensation awarded
to the claimants towards contributory negligence is set aside.
[Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11]  [633-G-H; 634-A-G; 635-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7300-
7309 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F. A. O. N

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.