LexSUDHIR KUMAR RANA versus SURINDER SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 871 - .... SUDHIR KUMAR RANA A v. SURINDER SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3321 of 2008) MAY 6, 2008 B - "' (S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Ss. 166 and 173: Contributory negligence - Motor Vehicle accident - Claimant, a minor, driving two-wheeler met with an accident c with a tractor driven rashly and negligently by respondentNo.1 - - Liability of a minor - Deduction of certain amount from "' compensation as awarded by Tribunal on ground of contributory negligence - Held: Doctrine of contributory negligence not applicable to a minor with the same force as to D - 'f a adult person - If complainant is guilty of an act/omission materially contributing to the accident resulting in injury and damage, the doctrine of contributory negligence would apply - In the instant case, no finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below that the claimant was driving the two-wheeler E rashly and negligently - Only because the claimant was not having a driving licence, he would not be held guilty of contributory negligence - Under the circumstances, the claimant is entitled to the entire amount of compensation with interest and no deduction from it on ground of contributory negligence could be made. F - ~ Doctrines: Doctrine of 'contributory negligence' - Applicability of. Appellant, a minor, driving a two-wheeler met with G an accident with a mini truck, which was allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. He filed a claim ,.I, petition on ground of suffering of multiple injury on his body. T~ibunal, while awarding compensation of 871 H ~ 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A Rs.30,000/-, found him guilty of contributory negligence as he was not holding a driving licence. Therefore, it ordered deduction of certain amount from the compensation so awarded. Appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence B the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Ordinarily, the doctrine of contributory negligence is not applicable in case of children with the c same force as in the case of adults. (Para - 4) [874-E] 1.2 This Court does not intend to lay down a law that a child can never be guilty of contributory negligence but ordinarily it is a question of fact. (Para - 5) [874-E, F] 0 Muthuswamy & Anr. vs. S.A.R. Annamalai & Ors. (1990) ACJ 974 - relied on. E F 1.3 The question of contributory negligence would arise only when both parties are found to be negligent. (Para - 6) [874-G] 1.4 If the complainant must be guilty of an act or omission which materially contributed to the accident and resulted in injury and damage, the concept of contributory negligence would apply. (Para - 7) [874-G, H; 875-A] New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Avinash (1998) ACJ 322 (Raj.) - relied on. 2.1 If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, m"ay not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been G held by the Courts below that it was respondent No.1, the driver of the mini-truck, which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly H ..... - "?" - - y SUDHIR KUMAR RANA v. SURINDER SINGH & ORS. 873 [S.B. SINHA, J.] and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and A negligently which contributed to the accident, this Court failed to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had B taken place. (Paras - 8 & 9) [876-8-E] 2.2 Appellant is entitled to the sum of Rs.30,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the award till making of the payment. Even otherwise C there is no reason as to why in view of the nature of the injuries he has suffered, he should be deprived of even the petty sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation. (Para - 10) [876-E, F] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3321 of 2008 From the Judgment dated 24.11.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in M.AC APP. No. 928/2006 D Manish Maini, Tushar Bakshi and Naresh Bakshi for the E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.