JAWAHAR SINGH versus BALA JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 09-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 6 S.C.R. 347 
JAWAHAR SINGH 
v. 
BALA JAIN & ORS. 
(SLP (C) No. 8660 of 2009) 
MAY 09, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Contributory negligence -
Liability of the owner of the vehicle, when minor involved in 
A 
B 
an accident - Motorcycle driven by minor in a very rash and C 
negligent manner struck against the scooter driven by the 
deceased, as a result deceased and his son thrown on the 
. road and deceased succumbed to fatal injuries sustained by 
him - Claim petition - Tribunal awarded Rs. 8 lakhs in favour 
of claimants with interest @ 7%, holding insurer liable to D 
satisfy the award and to recover the amount from the owner of 
the motorcycle - Order upheld by High Court - Interference 
with - Held: Not called for - Minor came on a motor cycle and 
hit the scooter of the deceased from behind -
Thus, 
responsibility in causing the accident was found to be solely E 
of a minor - However, since the driver was a minor, it was the 
responsibility of the owner to ensure that his motorcycle was 
not misused and .that too by a minor who did not have a 
licence to drive the same - Thus, Tribunal rightly held the 
owner of the motorcycle liable to pay compensation. 
F 
An accident took place when a motor cycle driven by 
'J'- a minor, in a very rash and negligent manner struck 
against a scooter driven by 'M'. As a result 'M' and his 
son were thrown on to the road and 'M' succumbed to the 
fatal injuries sustained by him. The legal heirs of the G 
deceased filed claim petitions. The· Tribunal awarded a 
sum of Rs. 8,35,067/- in favour of the claimants together 
with interest @7% from the date of institution of the 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A petition till the date of realisation. The insurer was held 
liable to satisfy the Award and to recover the amount 
from the petitioner-owner of the motorcycle. The High 
Court upheld the award passed by the Tribunal. The 
Review Application was also dismissed. Therefore, the 
8 
petitioner filed the instant Special Leave Petitions. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. This is not a case for interference in view 
of the fact that admittedly the motorcycle belonging to 
c the petitioner was being driven by 'J', who had no licence 
to drive the same and was, in fact, a minor on the date of 
the accident. While issuing notice the same was limited 
to the question regarding liability to pay compensation 
on account of contributory negligence by the deceased 
D who was riding a scooter, in causing the accident to 
happen. It was 'J' who Cdme from behind on the 
motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from 
behind. Therefore, the responsibility in causing the 
accident was found to be solely that of 'J'. However, since 
E 'J' was a minor and it was the responsibility of the 
petitioner to ensure that his motorcycle was not misused 
and that too by a minor who had no licence to drive the 
same, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal quite rightly 
saddled the liability for payment of compensation on the 
F petitioner and, accordingly, directed the Insurance 
Company to pay the awarded amount to the awardees 
and, thereafter, to recover the same from the petitioner. 
The said question was duly considered by the Tribunal 
and was correctly decided. The High Court rightly chose 
not to interfere with the same. [Paras 10 and 11] [353-G-
G H; 354-A-D] 
1.2. The story of 'J' who was a minor, walklng into 
1 
the house of the Petitioner and taking the keys of the · 
motorcycle without any intimation to the petitioner, 
H appears to be highly improbable and far-fetched. It is 
JAWAHAR SINGH v. BALA JAIN & ORS. 
349 
difficult to accept the defence of the petitioner that the A 
keys of the motorcycle were taken by 'J' without his 
knowledge. Having regard to the said facts, the case of 
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, 
attempted to be made out on behalf of the petitioner 
cannot be accepted. Since the notice on the Special B 
Leave Petition was confined to the question of 
contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the 
deceased, there is no reason to interfere with the Award 
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as upheld by the 
High Court. [Para 12) [354-E-G] 
c 
lshwar Chandra vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 3 
AD (SC) 753; National Insurance Co, Ltd. vs. G. Mohd. Vani 
and Ors. 2004 ACJ 1424; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. 
Candingeddawa and Ors. 2005 A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.