SAROJ & ORS. versus HET LAL & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 07-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 513 
SAROJ & ORS. 
v. 
HET LAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10321 of 2010) 
, 
DECEMBER 07, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
.. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 - ss. 166 and 161 (3)(a) -
Compensation - Motorcycle driven by deceased, hit by -
vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in 
C 
death of motorcyclist - Claim petition - Dismissed by Tribunal 
as also High Court - On appeal, held: Courts below ignored 
the admission by the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle 
belonging to him was involved in an accident with motorcycle 
and vehicle was driven by the driver - It cannot be said that D 
the negligence being on part of the motorcyclist, there was no 
question of compensation and that it was· a hit and run case 
- More so, even if it was a hit and run case, claimants entitled 
to at least Rs.25,0001- as per s.161 (3) (a) - Matter remitted 
back to tribunal as regards the liability for compensation on 
E 
the part of driver, owner and insurance company - No fault 
compensation. 
'JS', aged 34 years, was a registered medical 
practitioner and was earning Rs. 25,000/- p.m. on the 
fateful day, 'JS' was driving a motorcycle. The motorcycle 
F 
was hit by vehicle, Tata 207 driven in a rash and negligent 
manner. 'JS' died on the spot. The appellants, legal 
representatives of 'JS', filed a claim petition under Section 
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 against respondent 
No. 1 - the driver, respondent No. 2 - the owner of the G 
vehicle and respondent No. 3, the insurance company. 
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the 
offending vehicle owned by respondent No .. 2 and 
513 
H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A allegedly driven by respondent No. 1 was not involved 
in the accident at all. The High Court upheld the order. 
Therefore, the appellants-claimants filed the instant 
appeal: 
8 
Remitting the matter to the tribunal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The petition could not have been 
dismissed in totality. Presuming it to be a hit and run 
case, the appellants were entitled to at least Rs.25,000/-
as per the provisions of Section 161 (3) (a) of the Motor 
C Vehicles Act. Both the courts below failed to note the said 
provision. [Para 12] [521-A-B] 
1.2. The courts below completely erred in giving the 
finding that it was a hit and run case and that the vehicle 
o belonging to respondent No.2 was not involved in the 
accident. Insofar as that finding is concerned, it was an 
admitted position in the pleadings of respondent No.2 
that Tata 207 vehicle was involved in an accident with the 
motorcycle which took place on 16.9.2005 at 3.30 p.m. and 
E the said vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1. 
The admission in the pleadings itself is sufficient to hold 
that the vehicle belonging to respondent No.2 was 
involved in the accident. The said admission was never 
traversed by respondent No.2 and, thus, there was no 
F occasion to hold that the said vehicle was not involved; 
and that it was a hit and run case. Not only the Tribunal 
but the High Court also ignored the vital admission on 
the part of respondent No.2. It was nobody's case that 
the admissio'n of respondent No.2 was in collusion 
between respondent No.2 and the appellants. Thus, there 
G was no occasion for holding that the vehicle was not 
involved in the accident and on that count exonerating 
the three respondents. [Para 12] [521-B-F] 
H 
SAROJ & ORS. v. HET LAL & ORS. 
515 
1.3. The admission by respondent No. 2 might not be 
A 
binding vis-a-vis respondent No.1, the driver, who 
continued to take a stand that the vehicle being driven 
by him was not involved in the accident. This defence of 
respondent No.1 is understandable as admittedly he is 
facing the prosecution for causing the accident and the s 
death thereby of deceased 'JS'. [Para 13) [521-G] 
1.4. The counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3 
cannot dispute the fact that there was an. admission by 
respondent No.2 that the vehicle belonging to him was 
C 
involved in an accident. It cannot be said that the 
negligence was only on the part of the motorcyclist and 
there would be no question of any compensation on that 
count. The tribunal did not consider the matter from the 
said angle. Thus, Therefore, the judgments are set aside 
the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal only on the 
D 
question of liability for compensation on the part of 
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, on account of the accident 

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