HAZI ZAINULLAH KHAN (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, ALLAHABAD

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 13-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HAZI ZAINULLAH KHAN (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v. 
NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, ALLAHABAD 
JULY 13, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act 1939: Claim fouompensation-Award of-Coum 
below not appreciating the evidence properlrTestimony of independent wit-
ness rejected and that of interested defence witnesses relied on--Pe1Versity in 
C appreciation of evidence-Claim allowed. 
D 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Special Leave Jurisdic-
tion-Concumnt findings based on appreciation of evidence-Nonnally not 
inteifered with-l'e!Versity in appreciation of evidence-Need for inteiference. 
A college student while on his bicycle was hit by a truck belonging to 
the Respondent-Nagar Mahapalika and he died on the spot. The claim 
application filed before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal was dis-
missed. An appeal to the High Court was also not successful. Hence this 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The courts below were not justified in disbelieving .the 
testimony of P.W. 1, a disinterested witness who was having tea in a 
restaurant at a distance of about 15/20 feet from the place of occurrence. 
F 
There is nothing on the record to show that be was trying to help the 
claimants in any manner or was not a truthful witness. On the other band; 
the Nagar Mahapalika produced before the Tribunal the driver of the 
vehicle and an Assistant Engineer who were its employees. Both were 
interested witnesses. The Nagar Mahapalika did not produce even a single 
G independent witness to support its version. [565H, 566-A·B] 
2. The High Court fell into patent error in holding that there was no 
negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The testimony of P.W. 
1 is reliable. Even reading the evidence of the two defence witnesses in 
between the lines it is clear that the driver of the truck was primarily to 
H be blamed. He drove in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death 
562 
H.Z. KHAN v. NAGAR MAHAP ALIKA [KULDI~ SINGH, J.] 
563 
of the deceased. (567-B] 
A 
3. The deceased was about 20 years of age. His grand father was alive 
on the date of the accident and, as such, there was longevity in the family. 
He was a B.Sc. 1st year student with bright future. The claimant asked for a 
meagre sum of money amounting to Rs. 1,46,900 as compensation. It is very 
much on the lower side but keeping in view the time lapse and also the fact B 
that the courts below have not gone into the quantum of compensation, the 
claim is allowed rounding it off to Rs.1,50,000 with interest. (567-D-E] 
4. Ordinarily, under special leave jurisdiction, this Court is loath to 
interfere with the findings of the courts below based on appreciation of C 
evidence. But in the facts of the present case since the Tribunal examined 
the evidence in a perverse manner and drew the conclusions which, on the 
face of it are erroneous, and the High Court became totally oblivious to 
the patent perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal, it has 
become necessary to re-examine the evidence. (564-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4682 of 
1994. 
From. the Judgment and order dated 28.3.85 of the Allabab_ad High 
Court in F.A. No. 43 of 1975. 
Anis Shuhrawardy and C.P. Pandey for the Appellants. 
Pramod Swarup for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Delay condoned. 
Special leave granted. 
D 
E 
F 
Abdul Rehman-deceased, a student of B.Sc. 1st y.-:ar Biology, was 
coming back from the college on a bicycle on September 9, 1971 at about G 
5/6 P.M. in the.evening.-He was hit by truck No. UPZ..4272 owned byNagar 
Mabapalika, Allahabad. Abdul Rehman died, as a result of the accident, 
on the spot. Claim application for compensation was filed on March, 1, 
1972 before _the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) at Al-
lahabad. The tribunal dismissed the application. Appeal filed against the 
order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the H 
I 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Allahabad High Court on March 28,1985. This appeal, by the mother, sister 
and brothers of the deceased, is against the judgment of the High Court. 
B 
c 
In is not disputed that the truck involved in the accident belonged to 
the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The claimants examined Abdul Khali, 
que as the only witness relating to the accident before the ·Tribunal. On 
behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika Brij Lal, the driver of the vehi

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