KRISHAN GOPAL versus SANDHYA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 18-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 601 
'""" 
,..;,. 
KRISHAN GOPAL 
A 
v. 
SANDHYA DEVI & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 18, 2009 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
"i 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
~ 
s. 166 - Compensation - Claimant's son died in an 
' 
accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus and c 
driver of scooter of appellant - Deceased pillion rider on 
'~ 
scooter driven by appellant -
Said scooter owned by 
appellant's father - Claim petition - Award of Rs. 2 lakhs with 
9% interest p.a. by High Court holding both appellant and his 
father liable - lnteirference with - Held: Not called for-Appellant D 
gave different stands as to occurrence of incident - More so, 
--
did not come forward for his examination-High Court's reliance 
on prosecution witness who was the only eye witness to the 
actual accident, not improbable. 
Respondents filed claim petition that their son died E 
\ 
in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving 
of the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the scooter; 
and that the appellant no. 2 was the riding the scooter 
-( 
owned by appellant no. 1 and their son was a pillion rider. 
There were different versions of the accident by the owner F 
and bus driver and the appellants. Apart from the different 
versions, the appellant no.2 took different stands in the 
FIR lodged and before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 
as to how the accident actually occurred. PW.5, who 
witnessed the accident, stated that appellant no. 2 was G 
driving the scooter and deceased was a pillion rider and 
~ 
accident was due to negligence of both the bus driver 
and appellant no 2. The scooter did not skid and deceased 
-
died as handle of scooter pierced his stomach. MACT 
_, 
601 
. 
H 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
dismissed the petition. However, High Court allowed the 
;_ 
claim. It awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with 9% 
interest p.a. till deposit of amount, holding both the 
appellants liable. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From the facts the view taken by the High 
Court, relying on the evidence of P.W.5, does not appear 
to- be improbable. Apart from the fact that P.W.5 was the 
r-
only eye-witness to the actual accident, the High Court 
_..... 
; 
c also disbelieved the version projected on behalf of the 
· appellants on account of the different stands taken by the 
appellant No.2 as to how the accident actually occurred. 
While at the very initial stage it had been contended by 
.f 
the appellant No.2 that the accident had occurred even 
., 
before the bus had arrived at the scene, at a later stage it 
D was contended that it was the bus drive~'s negligence 
which had caused the accident. High Court also took note 
.... 
of the fact that the appellant No.2 had not come forward 
to be examined as to how the accident had actually taken 
E place. [Para 11] [606-B-D] 
1.2 The reversal of the Award of the Motor Accident 
Claims Tribunal by the High Court cannot be said to be 
perverse or without any basis and there is no reason to 
interfere with the same. [Para 12] [606-E] 
-.. 
F 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1104 
of 2009 
From the final Judgement and Order dated 29.11.2005 of 
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO No. 46 of 
G 2002 
Ravi Bakshi and Yash Pal Dhingra, for the Appellant. 
_. 
,,-
Rajesh Gupta, Harpreet Singh and Sumit Sharma (for 
M/s. K.J. John & Co.), for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
f 
.... 
' 
KRISHAN GOPAL V. SANDHYA DEVI & ORS. 
603 
~" 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 
A 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The respondents herein are the parents of one Jitender 
Sharma, who died in an accident on 21 s December, 1998. The 
respondents filed a claim petition, being No.39 of 1999, which B 
was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuitu, 
on 1st December, 2001. Against the said order of dismissal of 
-· 
their claim, the respondents preferred an appeal, being FAO 
No.46 of 2002, in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, 
which was allowed in favour of the respondent nos.1 and 2 
herein on 29
1
h November, 2005. By virtue of the said decision, c 
the High Court held that Jitender Sharma had died due to the 
rash and negligent driving of Jitender Thakur, the Appellant No.2 
herein, while he was driving the scooter owned by the Appellant 
No.1 (father oJ Appellant No.2) and that both of them were jointly D 
and severally

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