KUSUM LATA & ORS. versus SATBIR & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 02-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011) 3 S.C.R. 480 
KUSUM LATA & ORS. 
v. 
SATBIR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2269 of 2011) 
MARCH 02, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: 
c 
s. 166 - Fatal motor accident - Claim petition -
Appreciation of evidence - Claim disallowed by Tribunal as 
a/so by High Court on the ground that in the FIR the nu ...... ber 
of offending vehicle and the name of the driver were not 
mentioned - HELD: In motor accident claims, claimants are 
0 not required to prove the case like in a criminal trial - Courts 
must keep this distinction in mind - In the instant case, the 
incident was witnessed by the brother of the deceased and a 
co-villager- The brother of victim rushed him to hospital while 
the co-villager chased the offending vehicle and caught the 
driver - He gave the name of the driver and number of the 
E vehicle to police the following day - There is no reason why 
Tribunal and High court would ignore such an evidence -
Further, even though the age of the victim was determined to 
be 29 years, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 16 
instead of 17 - Accordingly, compensation amount would 
F come to Rs.3,93,4281- apart from funeral expenses and loss 
of consortium - However, exercising power under Article 142 
of the Constitution and considering the number of claimants 
which include a widow, two minor daughters and one minor 
son, and the deceased being the sole bread earner, an 
G amount of Rs. 6 lakh including funeral expenses and loss of 
consortium, is allowed with 7% interest from date of 
application till payment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 
136 and 142 -Evidence. 
H 
480 
--
--
KUSUM LATA & ORS. v. SATBIR & ORS. 
481 
.. ~.;~,-# ~.f\f.;~-·~~::·· ·. 
,,.,-%1 
A 29 year old villager while walking on foot was hit A 
by a tempo. His brother rushed him to hospital where he 
succumbed to his injuries. The claim petition of the 
dependants filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980 
was disallowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as 
also by the High Court mainly for the reason that the 
B 
number of the: offending vehicle and the name of its driver 
)vere not mentioned In the FIR. 
Allowing the appeal filed by the dependants of the 
deceased, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is well known that in a case relating to 
motor accident claims, the claimants are nQtrequired to 
prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal 
trial. Courts must keep this distinction in mind. [para 9] 
(487-A~B] 
c 
D 
1.2 In .the instant case, evidence has come on record 
from the deposition of ono 'DK~ who clearly proved the 
number of the vehicle. His statement is that he was going 
along with one 'AK' on a scooter to know the condition 
E-
. of. one of their relative in the Hospital. As they reached 
near the place of incident, a tempo bearing No. HR-34-
8010 of white colour being driven in a rash and negligent 
manner came from behind and overtook their scooter. 
The witness saw that the tempo hit the victim, as a result 
F 
of which he fell down but the tempo did not stop; they 
_ followed the same and caught the driver. On their asking, 
the driver disclosed his name. Thereafter, they went to 
the Hospital and on the following day when they were 
returning, they found police and other persons were 
present at the spot. The witness told the name of the G 
driver and gav~ the number of tile tempo to the police. 
This witr.ess claims to have seen the incident with his 
cwn eyos. When he was cross-examined, he stated that 
the deceased. was not related to him nor was he his 
neighbou~; He w~s hi~ co-villager. He also told that he 
H 
--
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 
A knows the driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR-34-8010. 
There Is no reason why the Tribunal and the High Court 
would ignore the otherwise reliable evidence of the 
witness. In fact, no cogent reason has been assigned 
either by the Tribunal or by the High Court for discarding 
B the evidence of the witness. The so-called reason that as 
his name was not mentioned in the FIR, so It was not 
possible for him to see the Incident, is not a proper 
assessment of the fact-situation in this case. [Para 7 and 
9] [485-F-H; 486-A-D; 486-G-H; 427-A-B] 
c 
Bimla Devi and others v. Himacha/ Road Transport 
Corporation and others. 2009 (6) SCR 362 = (2009) 13 SCC 
530 - relied on. 
1.3 When a person sees that his brother, being 
D knocked down by a speeding vehicle is suffering In pain 
and is i

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