GOHAR MOHAMMED versus UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 15-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
GOHAR MOHAMMED
v.
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 9322 of 2022)
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Liability of Vehicle Owner –
Accident Claim – Determination of Compensation – Victim-deceased
was 24 years old and working as Managing Director at DRV Drinks
Pvt. Ltd. – While he was returning from factory to residence, his car
was hit from behind by a bus owned by appellant –The deceased
sustained severe injuries and died on the way to hospital – Claim
petition – MACT awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,90,000/- alongwith
7% interest – MACT held that the vehicle was not being operated
as per the terms of permit and was in violation of terms and
conditions of insurance policy and, therefore, the owner of the
offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation – Appellant
filed appeal before the High Court assailing the issue of liability –
High Court affirmed the findings of MACT and held that the vehicle
owner failed to produce the original permit – Hence, instant appeal
– Held:The material available clearly reveals that on the date of
accident, the appellant did not have a valid and effective permit to
ply the offending vehicle on the route where accident took place –
Even assuming that permit was valid but it is of no help to the
appellant since the vehicle was being plied on a route different
than specified in permit –The concurrent findings of fact do not
warrant any interference.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.146,147,149,159,160,164 and
166 – Just Compensation – Reasonable Compensation – Payment
of Compensation – Delay in disposal of claim cases – Payment of
compensation in a case of death or for damage to the body in a
motor accident claim may be based on arithmetical calculation –
How far it is just and reasonable, is a matter of satisfaction of the
Court by adopting a uniform approach – In assessing the
compensation uniformity and reasonability are required to be
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 43
43
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
followed – Directions issued – Constitution of India – Art. 142 –
Motor Vehicles Amendment Act – ss.149(2), 159, 164, 166 – Motor
Vehicle Amendment Rules, 2022 – r.30.
Dismissing the appeal and passing certain directions, the
Court
HELD: 1. On the date of accident, the appellant did not
have a valid and effective permit to ply the offending vehicle on
the route where accident took place. Having extensively gone
through the fact-finding exercise, it is categorically recorded by
MACT that the appellant was neither able to produce/prove the
original permit nor was able to prove the information received
under RTI Act. Even if RTI information is considered by which it
is not clear as to when the disputed permit was issued and by
whom. The alleged permit was issued on 28.07.2012, i.e., on
Saturday and no explanation is on record as to why deposit of fee
was asked on the next day i.e. Sunday. Moreover, assuming that
permit was valid as per letter of Transport Authority, but it does
not of any help to the appellant since the vehicle was being plied
on a route different than specified in permit. The appellant has
failed to give any explanation to refute the observations made by
MACT to ply the vehicle on Roorkee by-pass to Haridwar via
Meerut which did not fall within the route of permit issued by
Transport Authority. The said findings of fact have been affirmed
by the High Court by the impugned order. After going through
the record, the concurrent findings of fact do not warrant any
interference since they do not outrageously defy the logic as to
suffer from the vice of irrationality and neither incur the blame of
being perverse. [Paras 8 and 9][50-B-F]
2. This appeal is decided with the following directions:
i) The appeal filed by the owner challenging the issue of
liability is hereby dismissed confirming the order passed by the
High Court and MACT.
ii) On receiving the intimation regarding road accident by
use of a motor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shall
take steps as per Section 159 of the M.V. Amendment Act.
iii) After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shall
take recourse as specified in the M.V. Amendment Rules, 2022
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
45
and submit the FAR within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal. The
IAR and DAR shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal within
the time limit subject to compliance of the provisions of the Rules.
iv) The registering of

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