BIMLA DEVI & ORS. versus HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 6 S.C.R. 362 
.... 
A 
SIMLA DEVI & ORS. 
)< 
v. 
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 2009) 
B 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Death on account of 
; -
injuries allegedly sustained in a blJs accident caused due to 
c rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no.2 and 
negligent conduct of respondent no.3-conductor- Deceased 
was a constable - Claim for compensation - Respondents 
denied and disputed the factum of bus accident and pleaded 
false implication by police officials - Tribunal did not believe 
D the respondents' version and accepted the claim of appellant 
...:. High Court reversed the judgment of Tribunal - Justification 
of - Held: Not justified - On facts, there was absolutely no 
reason to falsely implicate respondent nos.2 and 3 - Fact that 
FIR had been lodged in relation to an accident could not be 
E ignored - The claimants were merely to establish their case 
on the touchstone of preponderance of probability - Standard 
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied -
Judgment of High Court to a great extent was based on 
conjectures and surmises - While holding that the police 
F might have implicated the respondents, no reason was 
assigned in support thereof - No material brought on record 
was referred to by the High Court for the said purpose -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106. 
The husband of appellant no.1, a police constable, 
G died on account of injuries allegedly sustained by him in 
a bus accident caused due to rash and negligent driving 
• ... 
of the bus by respondent no.2 and negligent conduct of 
respondent no.3-conductor. Respondent no.1 owned the 
bus in question. 
H 
362 
BIMLA DEVI & ORS. v. HIMACHAL ROAD 
TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS. 
363 
Appellants filed claim petition for grant of A 
compensation in terms of s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988. Respondents denied and disputed the factum of 
bus accident. According to them, the deceased had died 
the previous evening and finding the dead body of a 
person wrapped in a blanket lying at some distance from 
B 
the bus, they informed the police personnel, but they were 
.-
~ 
falsely implicated. 
The Tribunal did not believe the respondents' version 
that the police officers had fabricated a false case arid 
C 
accepted the claim of the appellant. On appeal, the High 
Court reversed the judgment passed by the Tribunal 
holding that the deceased might have died in some other 
accident and that the police officials had wrongly lodged 
the FIR against the respondents. Hence the present 
appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. While dealing with a claim petition in terms 
of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal 
E 
stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; 
its function being to determine the amount of fair 
compensation in the event an accident has taken place 
by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. 
It is true that occurrence of an accident having regard to 
F 
the provisions contained in Section 166 of the Act is a 
sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that 
would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that 
death of the claimant's predecessor had taken place by 
reason of an accident caused by a motor vehicle, the 
same would be ignored only on the basis of a post G 
mortem report vis-a-vis the averments made in a claim 
petition. [Para 12] [369-C, DJ 
2.1. In the present case, the deceased was a 
Constable. Death took place near a police station. The 
H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A post mortem report clearly suggests that the deceased 
died of a brain injury. The place of accident is not far from 
the police station. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the 
story of the driver of the bus that he slept in the bus and 
in the morning found a dead body wrapped in a blanket. 
B If the death of a constable has taken place earlier, it is 
wholly unlikely that his dead body in a small town would 
remain undetected throughout the night particularly 
> ... 
when it was lying at a bus stand and near a police 
station. In such an even~, the court can presume that the 
c police officers themselves should have taken possession 
of the dead body. [Para 13] [369-E, F, G] 
2.2. The Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the basis 
that apparently there was absolutely no reason to falsely 
implicate the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Claimant was 

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