KAMLESH & ORS. versus ATTAR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 27-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1022 
KAMLESH & ORS. 
V. 
ATTAR SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8879 of 2015) 
OCTOBER 27, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI AND ARUN MISHRA, J.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Fatal accident - Death 
c occurred on account of collusion between a tempo (on which 
the deceased was travelling) and a car- Claim petition by 
the dependants of deceased against the driver, owner and 
insurer of the car and the driver of the tempo -
Tribunal 
awarded compensation of Rs. 5, 81, 0001-, fastening the liability 
D to pay the same on the driver of the tempo, attributing him . 
negligence - High Court, in appeal by the driver of tempo, 
set aside the award holding that the claimants had not set up 
case of negligence against him - On appeal, held: Method 
and manner of the accident and version of two witnesses show 
E 
that it was a case of composite negligence - Both the drivers 
were joint toit-feasors and thus liable to make payment of 
compensation - Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is 
confirmed - It is open to claimants to recover the entire 
F 
amount from any of the respondents - It is open to the 
respondents to settle their inter se liability or per Khenyei 
case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD:1. The method and manner in which the 
H 
accident has taken place leaves no room for doubt that 
it was a case of composite negligence of drivers of both 
the vehicles. Though Police has registered a case 
against driver of the tempo, but the same cannot be said 
1022 
KAM LESH & ORS. v. ATIAR SINGH & ORS. 
1023 
to be conclusive. It appears that both the drivers have A 
tried to save their liability. In such circumstances, the 
version of eye-witnesses, PW.2 and PW.3 assumes 
significance. No effort has been made by the High Court 
to appreciate the evidence and method and manner in 
which the accident has taken place. Both the witnesses B 
have stated that the car was in excessive speed. 
However, it appears that the driver of tempo also could 
not remove his vehicle from the way of the car. Thus, 
both the drivers were clearly negligent. It was a case of c 
composite negligence. Both the drivers were joint 'tort-
feasors', thus, liable to make payment of compensation. 
(Para 8) (1026-C-H; 1027-A-B] 
Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 
AIR 2015 SC 2261: 2015 (5) SCR 158 - relied 
on. 
v· 
2. The amount determined/awarded by the Claims 
Tr.ibunal i.e. Rs.5,81,000/- along with 6 per cent interest 
is upheld as no appeal for its enhancement was filed by 
E 
the _claimants. It would be open to the claimants to recover 
the entire amount from any of the respondents, that is 
from owner, driver and insurer of the the car or 
respondent No.4, driver of the tempo, as their liability is 
F 
joint and several with respect to claimants. It would be 
open to the resp•:>ndents to settle their inter se liability 
as per khenyei case. [Para 10] (1028-C-D] 
Case Law Reference 
2015 (5) SCR 158 
relied on 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
8879 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2009 of the 
G 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 
345 of2007. 
B 
c 
Daya Krishan Sharma, Adv., fortheAppellatns. 
Manish Pratap Singh, (for Dr. NafisA. Siddiqui)., Adv., for 
the! Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appeal has been preferred by the claimants 
aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition and setting 
aside award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 
Sonepat on 5.8.2005 in Claim Petition No.217/2002/2004 by 
· D the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh vide 
judgment and order dated 4.9.2009 in FAO No.345/2007. 
3. The claimants Kamlesh, widow of deceased RiSht· 
Parkash, three minor sons and mother of the deceased filed a 
E claim petitiOl'I as against the driver, owner and insurer of Maruti 
Car No.DL4CC -5172 and driver of three-wheeler Tempo 
No. HRH-3572. The compensation of Rs.12 lakhs was prayed 
on account of the death of Rishi Parkash in the accident dated 
8.5.2003 caused due to the collision between Maruti car and 
F tempo. Maruti car was driven by Rajinder Singh whereas the 
tempo was driven by Attar Singh, respondent No.4. Deceased 
Rishi Parkash was travelling in the tempo towards village Naina 
Tatarpur. As per the claimant Attar Singh was driving the tempo 
0 
on his right side at a normal speed in due o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.