MOHAR SAI AND ANR. versus GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 27-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
MOHAR SAI AND ANR.
v.
GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8411 of 2015)
APRIL 27, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.140 – When not applicable –
Person died in a motor accident – Claim petition by respondents-
heirs of the deceased – Tribunal decided the petition in favour of
the respondents holding that the motorcycle at the relevant time was
being driven by appellant No.2 and he had caused the accident
due to rash and negligent driving and granted compensation – High
Court reversed the said finding recorded by Tribunal, however,
maintained the liability fastened on appellants as regards the
compensation – Plea of appellants that in view of finding of High
Court that it was a case of contributory negligence as the deceased
himself was driving the motorcycle, at the most respondents would
be entitled to compensation on ‘no fault liability principle’ u/s.140
– Held: High Court committed manifest error in reversing the finding
recorded by the Tribunal – Respondents through their witnesses
established that the motorcycle was owned by appellant No.1
(father of appellant No.2) and on the day when the accident took
place the motorcycle was driven by appellant no.2 while the deceased
was sitting in the middle and DW-2 was behind him – High Court
did not discard the said version as untruthful, however, selectively
relied on the statements of interested witnesses examined on behalf
of the appellants – No infirmity in the finding recorded by the
Tribunal – Once the finding of High Court that the motorcycle was,
in fact, driven by deceased becomes doubtful, the question of
applying s.140 of the Act does not arise – In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, no interference is warranted –
Constitution of India – Art.136.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim under –
Role of Court – Discussed.
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 509
 509
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In cases where the accident occurs without
any fault of the owner of the vehicle or the fault of t8411he other
vehicle, the liability to pay compensation, at best, must be
determined in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The High Court in the present case overturned the finding
recorded by the Tribunal that the motorcycle was driven by
appellant No.2 at the relevant time when the accident occurred
and, instead, concluded that the motorcycle was, in fact, driven
by deceased. In that sense, the accident occurred neither due to
the fault of the owner of the vehicle (appellant No.1) who,
admittedly, was not present or travelling on the motorcycle at
the relevant time nor due to the fault of any other vehicle.
However, on a deeper scrutiny it is found that the High Court
committed manifest error, an error apparent on the face of the
record, in reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
motorcycle was being driven by appellant No.2 (son of appellant
No.1 – owner of the motorcycle) and had caused accident due to
rash and negligent driving.  Though, the respondents–claimants
have neither come up in cross appeal against the reduction of
the compensation amount on the finding of  contributory
negligence nor have they filed any cross objection regarding
reversing of the crucial finding of fact by the High Court.
However, it is well settled that in motor accident claim cases, the
Court cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach but has to
discharge the role of parens patriae.  [Para 8][515-C-G]
1.2  The respondents, through their witnesses established
that the motorcycle was owned by appellant No.1 and appellant
No.2 used to drive that motorcycle himself. The appellants did
not even produce any title of evidence, except the bare words of
the appellants and their witnesses (DW-2) and (DW-3) who were
obviously interested witnesses. The view taken by the Tribunal
was not only a possible view but also in conformity with the scale
to be applied for appreciation of evidence in motor accident cases
namely preponderance of probabilities. [Paras 9, 11][516-E-F;
518-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
1.3  The entirety of evidence was not analysed by the High
Court, including the material evidence of witnesses who had seen
appellant No.2 driving the motorcycle and deceased sitting behind
him as pillion rider. The High Court, however, selectively relied
on the statements of interested witnesses examined on behalf of
the appellants. The e

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