BISHAN DEVI & ORS. versus SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 20-08-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
300 
BISHAN DEVI & ORS. 
v. 
SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR. 
August 20, 1979 
[A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicl~ Act 1939, S. 110~4-Detenninati!ln and payn1cnt of compen .. 
sation-No inunediate Qnd adequate relief to Jependents under the existing law-
Amend1nent suggested-Provision silnilar as in rail and air accidents--Liability 
to pay mini1nun1 compensation absolute-Dep,.,"fldents not satisfied nzay pursue 
re1nedies before Claims Tribunal-Rtgular monthly pay1nents instead of lu111p 
suni pay1nent-Advantageous to, dependants-Less /;urdenso111c on the insurer. 
The appellants in their claim petition, before the J\1otor Accidents Claints 
Tribunal, claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, alleging that the husband of 
the first appellant was run over by a truck which \Vas driven in a rash and 
negligent manner. Appellants 2 to 5 were the minor children of 
the 
first 
appelloot. 
The claim was contested by the owner of the truck, Respondent No. 1 and 
the insurer, Respondent No. 2. 
A written plea V.'as filed by the second respon-
dent contending that the truck had been stolen by somebody while it was. 
standing, that a report to thei police had been made to this effect and that the 
truck was driven without the consent of the owner and cons'equently the respon-
dents were not liable. It woo further pleaded that the replying respondent was 
. absolved from any possible liability in connection with the allege<l acckl,;nt 
under the provisions of Ss. 95 and 96 (2) of the .Motor Vehicles Act 1939. 
The first Iespondent in his written statement filed about a month after that of 
the second respondent, contended that the truck did not meet with any accident 
nor was any intimation sent to the replying respondent. 
The Motor Accident Claims. Tribuna-1, came to the conclusion from the 
pleadings and evidence that the claimants had failed to establish the identity of 
the driver and the claimants not even being aware of the. nan1e of the driver 
who had driven the offending truck, had failed to prove their case ood rejected 
the claim. 
The appeal of the claimants to the· High Court was rejected, the High Court 
agreeing with the finding of the Claims Tribunal and further holding that the 
truck was stolen by some irresponsible person who did not know driving and by 
reckless driving caused the accident and therefore the owner of the truck cannot 
be held responsible·. 
Allo\ving the appeal, 
HELD : 1. According to the insurer by his written statement which was 
filed a month before the written statement of the owner it was pleaded that 
somebody stole the truck without the knowledge of the owner or the driver. 
'The plea of the owner in his written statement' filed more than a month there-
after, was that the truck did not meet with any accident. 
While the owner 
did not complain about any theft of the vehicle, ihe insurer professed further 
knowledge tllat the vehicle was driven by somebody who had no driving licence-
• 
........ 
~ 
It 
• ~ 
,_ 
• 
_,. 
• 
BISHAN DEVI & ORS. V. SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR. 
301 
and without the authorisation of the owner. Ap2d't from not examining himself 
the insurer didl not make any attempt to substantiate his plea that the driver who 
was driving the vehicle did not have the driving licence~ The plea taken by 
both the owner and insurer is palpably false and made without any se·nse of 
responsibility with a ,view to somehow escape liability. It is most w1becoming 
of an insurance company to have acted in this callous and irresponsible manner. 
[305 F-H, 306B, 307G] 
2. There is no finding by the Claims Tribunal that the truck was <lriven 
by an unauthorised person .. The High Court found that the truck ought to 
have been stolen a.Ild driven by some irresponsible person \vho did not know 
driving._ According to A\V 4 the truck w&s driven by RW_ 2. 
Jn fat:t in the 
F.I.R., AW 4 stated that it- was RW 2 who was diving the truck. In cross-
examination be stated tha·t the case against R\V 2 is still pending in the court 
and as far as he could remember he had no driving licence. The cvid~nce 
of the owner of the' truck is totally unreliable. The evidence of R\.V 2 is se1f-
serving and is made with a view to escape the -prosecution that \Vas launched 
against him. It is therefore surprising tha-t the lligh Court observed that it is 
evident from the material on record that RW 2 did not possess the driving 
licence. [307H·308D] 
3. Und'cr S. 96(2)(b)(ii) the insur

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