MANAM SARASWATHI SAMPOORNA KALAVATHI & ORS. versus MANAGER, APSRTC, TADEPALLIGUDEM A.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 26-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 872 
A 
MANAM SARASWATHI SAMPOORNA KALAVATHI & 
ORS. 
v. 
MANAGER, APSRTC, TADEPALLIGUDEM A.P. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2325 of 2010) 
B 
MARCH 26, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. 
RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
C 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s.166 and Schedule II - Fatal 
accident - Rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle 
alleged -FIR also lodged - PW-2, Pillion rider of the scooter 
driven by the deceased, deposing that deceased was driving 
the scooter cautiously and driver of the offending vehicle was 
D driving in a rash and negligent manner -
Claim for 
compensation -Tribunal holding that accident was caused 
due to rash and negligent driving and awarded Rs. four lakhs 
applying multiplier of 16 - High Court disbelieving the 
evidence of PW-2 held that accident was not due to rash and 
E negligent driving -It also held that application of multiplier 
from Schedule II was not correct, as the Schedule did not exist 
on the day of accident - However, the Court awarded 
compensation for Rs. 7-5, 0001- - On appeal, held: High Court 
order was contradictory and unsustainable -
There is no 
F basis, logic and rationality in arriving at the conclusions -
High Court was unjustified in weaving out a new case which 
is not borne out from the evidence on record - Application of 
multiplier from Schedule II is permissible in the facts of the 
case -Award passed by Tribunal restored. 
G 
H 
After a fatal motor accident, mother, father and sisters 
of the deceased filed the claim petition under Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988. FIR in respect of the incident was also 
lodged immediately after the accident. PW-2 (Pillion rider 
of the scooter which was driven by the deceased) stated 
872 
MANAMSARASWATHISAMPOORNAKALAVATHI v. MANAGER, 873 
APSRTC, TADEPALLIGUDEM 
that deceased was driving the scooter slowly and A 
cautiously on left side of the road and respondent No. 2 
(the bus driver) was driving the bus in a rash and 
negligent manner and without blowing horn dashed the 
scooter from behind. Tribunal, relying on the testimony 
of PW-2, held that the deceased died because of rash and B 
negligent act of respondent No. 2 (the driver of APSRTC). 
The Tribunal applying the multiplier of 16, determined the 
compensation amount at Rs. 4,80,000/-. Since the 
claimants had claimed only Rs. 4,00,000/-, the Tribunal 
restricted the compensation amount to Rs. 4,00,000/-. 
c 
In appeal, High Court disbelieved the testimony of 
P\11/-2, doubting his presence at the spot. It observed that 
there were possibilities of deceased driving the scooter 
at a high speed and sustaining injuries, or deceased not 
possessing a driving licence and falling down due to lack D 
of experience; and that there was possibility of the 
claimants influencing the police and getting the FIR 
registered with time and date of their choice. High Court 
further held that the Tribunal was in error in taking the 
multiplier from Schedule II of the Act, as the Schedule did E 
not exist on the day of accident. The court awarded 
compensation for Rs. 75,000/-. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1.The High Court erroneously observed that 
there is no evidence that the deceased died because of 
serious injuries received due to rash and negligent 
driving of the driver of the APSRTC. [Para 19] [881-D] 
F 
1.2. The approach of the High Court in evaluating the G 
evidence of PW-2 is entirely erroneous. The evidence of 
PW-2 could not have been discarded on the ground that 
after sustaining minor injuries, he did not file a claim 
petitio'n. This cannot be an appropriate manner of 
appreciating the evidence. When no question was asked H 
. 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 3 S.C.R. 
A in the cross-examination, then PW-2 could not be 
expected to give reply to the question. The High Court 
by adopting erroneous method of scrutinizing the 
evidence, has discarded the evidence of PW-2. The High 
Court has wrongly observed that the possibility of PW-2 
B not being with the deceased at the time of accident and 
his implicating the bus belonging to the respondents, is 
also without any basis or foundation. [Paras 13 and 18] 
[879-F-H; 880-A; 881-B-C] 
C 
, 1.3. The finding of the High Court that it was possible 
that the deceased, while driving the scooter at a high 
speed, falling down and sustaining head injury is totally 
contrary to the record of this case. PW-2 has categorically 
stated in his evidence that the deceased was driving 
s

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