THE NEW DATAR TRANSPORT CO. (PVT.) LTD. versus SMT. RADHABAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 07-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
THE NEW DATAR TRANSPORT CO. (PVT.) LTD. 
A 
v. 
SMT. RADHABAI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 : 
Motor accident clabn-Negligence-Con1pensation-Accident due to 
collision of a passenger bus with a jeeir-Person sitting on left side of jeep C 
died-Tlial judge held that death occun-ed due to inevitable accident but 
awarded Rs. 20, 000 as compe1;sation-High Cowt in appeal after appreciat-
ing the evidence found that accident took place due to negligence of bus 
d!iver, upheld the amount and decreed the claim petition-Held, High Court 
recorded the finding based on appreciation of evidence-Judgment of High 
Cowt confinned. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2233 (N) 
of 1970. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated 18/19/20.7.67 of the Bombay 
High Court in F.A. No. 63 of 1960. 
E 
Mrs. AK. Verma for JBD & Co. for the Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra and Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondent No. 9. 
U.U. Lalit for the Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leav~ on the ground of pecuniary valuation 
arises from the judgment and order of the High Court Bombay made on G 
July 18, 19 & 20, 1967 in F.A. No. 63 & 79/64. The indisputed facts are 
that the S.D.O., R.J. Kulkarni was going in jeep No. MPK-741 along with 
Tehsildar G .S. Kulkarni, Shri Vaidya, Agricultural Assistant and Peon 
Parashram which was driven by Shantaram Patki a driver (P.W. 5) on 
February 14, 1959. When the jeep was proceeding at a speed of 25 to 30 
miles per hour at a place called Karanja, a passenger bus coming from the H 
379 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
opposite direction collided with the jeep on the extreme left hand side due 
to the impact of which R.J. Kulkarni died. The respondents laid a claim 
for damages for accident. The trial Court found as a fact that the dealh 
had occurred due to the inevitable accident but recorded the finding that 
had the defendants been liable to pay any damages or compensation to 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
which the respondents would be entitled, it would have come to Rs. 20,000 
and odd. The trial Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the 
accident was due to inevitable accident. On appeal, on reappreciation of 
the evidence, the High Court reversed the finding on negligence and held 
that the driver of the passenger bus was negligent; consequently upholding 
the amount awarded by the trial Court, the High Court decreed the 
petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
The only question is : whether P.W. 5 was negligent in driving the 
jeep due to which the collision had occurred ? The High Court had 
carefully scanned the evidence of P.W. 5 and held thus : 
'We do not think, however, why the statement of Patki that Jeep 
car had not come to a standstill but was proceeding in slow motion 
at the time of the accident could not be accepted. Patki was asked 
in cross-examination as to why he did not take his jeep car either 
to the right or further to the left when there was possibility of 
impact with the bus. Patki has replied that he did not take the car 
to the right side of the road because thereby he would be going 
on the wrong side of the road and he could not take the car further 
to the left as there was ditch on the left side of the road and the 
front wheels of the jeep car were likely to get into it. Possible, 
these questions were asked by the defendants indicate that Patki 
might have avoided the impact by taking the car further to the left 
or to the right. We are unable to appreciate that Patki could be 
considered to be wanting in taking further to the left or to the 
right. We are unable to appreciate that Patki could be considered 
to be wanting in taking necessary care because he could neither 
take the car to the right nor further to the left. The reason given 
by Shri Patki for continuing to drive the car on the kachcha road 
are adequate to show that he could not have deviated from the 
direction and the side without further risk. We are unable to 
appreciate how Patki could have taken his car towards the right. 
It was the duty of the driver of the passenger bus to take the bus 
NEW DAT AR TPT. CO.PVf.LTD. v. RADHABAI 
381 
on the proper side of the road, i.e., towards his left. If the driver A 
of the bus did not or could not do so, the fault cannot be laid at 
the door of the driver of the jeep car, circumstances as he was at 
the relevant 

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