LexGIAN CHAND & ORS. versus GURLABH SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1096 GIAN CHAND & ORS. v. GURLABH SINGH & ORS. (CivilAppeal No.14731 of2015) DECEMBER 15, 2015 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Application for c compensation - Motor accident- Rash and negligent driving by bus driver resulting in the death of school teacher- Claim petition uls. 166 by parents-Award of Rs. 25, 0001- under no fault liability by the tribunal holding that the accident was caused due to mechanical failure for which driver could not D be said at fault - High Court upheld the award - On appeal, held: Courts below committed grave error of law while arriving at the findings as to the method and manner in which accident took place - Reliable evidence on behalf of the claimants that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its E driver - Pleas by the driver as well as the Transport Undertaking totally at variance - Further, the driver did not state that due to road condition the bus jumped all of a sudden, and also suppressed the fact that the bus initially dashed a stationary tractor, thus the version of the driver not F reliable - Furthermore, mere mechanical failure is not enough to exonerate the Transport Undertaking from its liability in the absence of evidence being adduced that the vehicle was maintained properly- Thus, the parents awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 7, 50, 0001- along with interest G at the rate of 6 % pa from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No: 14731 of2015 1096 GIAN CHAND & ORS. v. GURLABH SINGH & ORS. 1097 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2014 of the A High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 862 of -1997 Piyush Sharma, Vikram Saini, A. K. Mishra for the Appellants. B Soayi B. Qureshi, Ravi Prakash, Udita Singh, Chandra Prakash, Rahul Kumar, Meenakshi Midha, C. S. Ashri, Taniya Pandey for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. 1.Leave granted. 2. The appeal arises out of judgment and order passed c by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.862 of 1997 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the D claimants assailing the award dated 8.1.1997 passed in M.A.C.T. No.18/1994. 3. The claimants preferred petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of Mulakh Raj, aged E 25 years, who died in an accident involving Bus No.CH-01-G- 5152. He boarded the said bus from Una for Delhi. Near Kotli about 5 kms. before Anandpur Sahib the bus dashed a stationary tractor trolley and thereafter struck against a eucalyptus tree and turned turtle. It was driven rashly and F negligently by Gurlabh Singh, owned by Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. The deceased was the sole bread winner of the family, used to earn Rs.45q2 per month, was a Headmaster and in addition used to earn Rs.1000 per month from agriculture. G 4. The respondent driver contested the claim petition and contended that the accident was not the outcome of rash and negligent driving but due to a sudden breaking of belt of spring the accident took place. He was not at fault. H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A 5. The Transport Undertaking in a separate statement contended that when the bus reached near village Solkhain, two scooterists came from the opposite side. The scooter was driven rashly arid negligently and struck the bus on the driver side which was the cause of accident. The accident did not B take place due to fault of the bus driver. 6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident was caused due to sudden breaking of belts of springs for which driver could not be said to be at c fault. Under no fault liability a sum of Rs.25,000 had been awarded to the claimants. The claim petition was dismissed. The High Court has affirmed the award hence the present appeal before us. 7. It was strenuously contended by learned counsel D appearing on behalf of the appellants that the courts below have erred in law in dismissing the claim petition. Pleas totally at variance from each other have been taken by the driver and Transport Undertaking in their repiy and the statement of E mechanic that breaking of belt of springs can take place in case brakes are applied all of a sudden, has been ignored. The finding recorded by the courts below that the driver did not drive t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.