Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the claim, holding that the evidence established the driver’s identity and that the insurer’s defence under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) was untenable, thereby awarding compensation to the dependants.

Summary

The widowed Bishan Devi and her four minor children claimed Rs.50,000 as compensation for the death of the husband, who was run over by a truck allegedly driven in a rash manner. The truck’s owner and the insurer contended that the vehicle had been stolen and was driven by an unlicensed, unauthorized driver, invoking Sections 95 and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to escape liability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected the claim on the ground that the driver’s identity was not established and that the vehicle was stolen. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of police witnesses established that Anoop Singh was the driver, that the insurer’s defence under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) was unsupported, and that the claimants were entitled to compensation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and a joint decree of Rs.20,000 plus costs was awarded to the dependants.

Issues considered

The owner of the vehicle is liable for compensation when the vehicle is alleged to have been stolen and driven by an unauthorized, unlicensed driver.
Whether the insurer can successfully rely on Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 without proving the driver was unlicensed.
Whether the claimants must prove the identity of the driver to obtain compensation under the Act.
The correctness of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and High Court decisions rejecting the claim.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 95, s. 96(2)(b)(ii)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActCompensationMotor accidentLiability of vehicle ownerInsurer defenceUnlicensed driverDependantsClaims Tribunal

Judgment

300

A BISHAN DEVI & ORS.
v. •
SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR.
August 20, 1979
B [A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J
Motor Vehicl~ Act 1939, S. 110~4-Detenninati!ln and payn1cnt of compen..
sation-No inunediate Qnd adequate relief to Jependents under the existing law-
Amend1nent suggested-Provision silnilar as in rail and air accidents--Liability
to pay mini1nun1 compensation absolute-Dep,.,"fldents not satisfied nzay pursue
re1nedies before Claims Tribunal-Rtgular monthly pay1nents instead of lu111p
c suni pay1nent-Advantageous to, dependants-Less /;urdenso111c on the insurer.
The appellants in their claim petition, before the J\1otor Accidents Claints
Tribunal, claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, alleging that the husband of
the first appellant was run over by a truck which \Vas driven in a rash and
negligent manner. Appellants 2 to 5 were the minor children of the first
appelloot.
D The claim was contested by the owner of the truck, Respondent No. 1 and
the insurer, Respondent No. 2. A written plea V.'as filed by the second respon-
dent contending that the truck had been stolen by somebody while it was.
standing, that a report to thei police had been made to this effect and that the
truck was driven without the consent of the owner and cons'equently the respon-
dents were not liable. It woo further pleaded that the replying respondent was
. absolved from any possible liability in connection with the allege<l acckl,;nt
E under the provisions of Ss. 95 and 96 (2) of the .Motor Vehicles Act 1939.
The first Iespondent in his written statement filed about a month after that of
the second respondent, contended that the truck did not meet with any accident
nor was any intimation sent to the replying respondent.
The Motor Accident Claims. Tribuna-1, came to the conclusion from the
pleadings and evidence that the claimants had failed to establish the identity of
the driver and the claimants not even being aware of the. nan1e of the driver
F
who had driven the offending truck, had failed to prove their case ood rejected
the claim.

The appeal of the claimants to the· High Court was rejected, the High Court
........
agreeing with the finding of the Claims Tribunal and further holding that the
truck was stolen by some irresponsible person who did not know driving and by
reckless driving caused the accident and therefore the owner of the truck cannot ~
G be held responsible·. It
Allo\ving the appeal,
HELD : 1. According to the insurer by his written statement which was
filed a month before the written statement of the owner it was pleaded that ,_• ~

somebody stole the truck without the knowledge of the owner or the driver.
'The plea of the owner in his written statement' filed more than a month there-
H after, was that the truck did not meet with any accident. While the owner
did not complain about any theft of the vehicle, ihe insurer professed further
knowledge tllat the vehicle was driven by somebody who had no driving licence-
BISHAN DEVI & ORS. V. SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR. 301

and without the authorisation of the owner. Ap2d't from not examining himself
the insurer didl not make any attempt to substantiate his plea that the driver who
was driving the vehicle did not have the driving licence~ The plea taken by
• both the owner and insurer is palpably false and made without any se·nse of
responsibility with a ,view to somehow escape liability. It is most w1becoming
of an insurance company to have acted in this callous and irresponsible manner.
[305 F-H, 306B, 307G]
2. There is no finding by the Claims Tribunal that the truck was <lriven B
by an unauthorised person.. The High Court found that the truck ought to
have been stolen a.Ild driven by some irresponsible person \vho did not know
driving._ According to A\V 4 the truck w&s driven by RW_ 2. Jn fat:t in the
F.I.R., AW 4 stated that it- was RW 2 who was diving the truck. In cross-
examination be stated tha·t the case against R\V 2 is still pending in the court
and as far as he could remember he had no driving licence. The cvid~nce
of the owner of the' truck is totally unreliable. The evidence of R\.V 2 is se1f-
serving and is made with a view to escape the -prosecution that \Vas launched
against him. It is therefore surprising tha-t the lligh Court observed that it is
evident from the material on record that RW 2 did not possess the driving
licence. [307H·308D]
_,. 3. Und'cr S. 96(2)(b)(ii) the insurer can defend a claim for cOmpensatio.n
on the ground that the vehicle was driven by a person \Vho was not duly
licensed. ·Apart from ma.king the averment in his written statement the insurer
D_
did not take any steps to establish that the vehicle \Vas driven by a person \vho
Was riot prOperly licensed. The evidence of AVls. 4 and 5 clearly cstablish~s
that R.W. 2 WZ.'3 driviilg the vehicle., [30SE-F]
4. The J\fotor Accident Claims' Tribuntd rejected the evidence of A Vv'S. 4
and 5 on the ground· that as the time of accident is said to be ·1 a.m.- it is
not possible for the witnesses to have recognised R.\V. 2 (driver). The evid.:nce E
of A\V 4 \\'as rejected as he fa-iled to identify RW 2. A\V 5 stated that he
knew RW 2 and -that it \Vas he who was driving the truck and that he ran
away after causing the accident. The b!liis on w·hich the Qaims Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the identity of the driver was not established is not
acceptable. Equaily unacceptable is the cOnclusion of the High Court that as
suggested by the counsel for the respondents the truck \Vas stolen by some
irresponsible -person who did not know driving and by his reckless act caused F
, the accident. There has been no discussion of the evidence of A \Vs 4 and 5.
[306F-G, H-307A]
5., The deceased at the time of his death was \YOrl.:ing 3fS a Patwari and
was drawing Rs. 1091• per month as his salary. "out of which he used to
handover Rs. 100/- to Appellant No. 1 for household 'expenses. The deceased
bad many more years to go and his contributicm to the household \Vhich consisted
of his wife and four children would have illcreased. Rs. 20,000/- as compensa· G
tion and Rs. 2,500f.- as costs awarded. [308H·309A]
6. The instant case brings into focus the difficulties experienced by dependants
in obtaining relief before the ~Iotor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The law as
it exists, requires that the claimant should prove that the driver of the vehicle
• was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The burden thus placed is very heavy
and difficult to discharge by the claimant. The records of police inv.:stigation
are - nOt made available to the Tribunal. The Officers WbO investigateJ. the H
accident are seldom available to give evidence before the Claims Tribunal ;:;.-nd
-assist it in coming to a proper -conclusion. Thei insurance -company in quite a
302 SUPREME COU:llT REPORTS (1980] l S.C.R.

A few cases, takes an unreasonable sta•d and raises all sorts of untenable pleas
just. to thwart relief to thei dependan~. In many of the claims it turns out to be
beyond the capacity of the claimant 1o maintain his claim in a court of law.
It is for the legi:5lature to make profflion~ for immediate and adequate relief
to the dependant• in motor accident cam. [309B. E-F, 310E]
7. The legislaturo may consider aaking the lia·bility to pay 111inin1un1
compensation ab:"lolute as is provided for to the dependants of victims in rail
B and air accidents. When a person tii~ in a motor accident, the number of
his dependants and the period of their dependency may be ascertained. The
minin1um compensaotion n1ay be paid eveiy month to the dependants according
to their share for the period to which flaey are entitled. The insurance co1npanies
being nationalised the necessity for awarding lump sum- payment to secure the
interest of the· dependants i~ no longer there. Regular monthly payments could
be made through one of the nationaliMd banks nearest to the place of residence
c of the dependant!. P<l!yment of mo.thly instalment~ and avoidance of lump
sum payment would reduce substantially the burden on the insurer and conse-
quently of the insured. [310E-G]
i'\1inu B. Mehta & Anr. v. Balkrishna Ran1chandra Naya11 & Anr., 1977.
'
Accidents Claims Journal~l 18; State of Haryana v. Darshan Devi & Ors., 1979
Accidents Claims Tribunal 205; referred to.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1455 of 1969
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
7-12-1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 10
of 1963.
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Appellants.
R. A. Gupta for Respondent No. 1.
V. C. Mahajan, Naunit Lal and Kai/ash Vasdev for Respondent
No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAILASAM J. This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court
F to Bishan Devi widow of late Bhagwan Das and her four childl"en
against the judgment and order dated 7th December, 1967 of the
High Court of Punjab .& Haryaua dismissing the Claimants' F.A.O.
No. 10 of 1962 against the award of Punjab Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Chandigarh. dismissing their claim.
The appellants filed a petition on 4th September, 1961 before the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh
alleging that the husband of the imt appellant died by having been run
over by a lorry at midnight between the 8th and 9th July, 1961, at
about a distance of 60 feet from the road. It was alleged that the truck • •
was coming from Jullundur and it took a sudden turn and ran over
H the first appellant's husband, Shri Bhagwan Das. and that it was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants 2 to 5 were the
minor children of the first appellant, all of them being below 11 years
BISHAN DEVI & ORS. v. SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR. (Kailasam, J.) 303

of age on the date of the filing of the petition. It was alleged that the A
I
monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1091- per month and a claim
was made for Rs. 50,000 as compensation:
The respondents to the petition were (1) Sirbaksh Singh and (2)
..• The Motor Owners' Mutnal Insurance Co. Ltd., Belgaum the insurer.
The written plea was filed by the second respondent, the insurer, on
10th October, 1961. Some of the pleas are noteworthy and it is neces- B
sary to set them out in some detail. In para 4 the insurer pleaded that
the ntruck was stolen by somebody while it was standing. A report to
the police was made to this effect. Whoever made this accident, if any,
rirove the truck without the consent of the owner, and, therefore, the
respondents are not liable". In its reply parawise in paragraph 1 it
reiterated "This trnck did not meet with any accident nor was any inti- c
mation sent to the replying respondent". In paragraph 2 it was again
reiterated "No accident took place as alleged. Somebody stole away
,. the trnck without the knowledge of the owner or driver. The respon-
dents are not liable to pay any compensation. The person liable is the
person who was driving the trµck at the relevant time and not the
D
owner." In paragraph 11 it was pleaded "that the replying respondent
is, in any case, absolved from any possible liability in connection with
the alleged accident under the provisions of Sections 95 and 96(2) of
t_he Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". In paragraph 12 it was stated that
the "offending vehicle was being driven at the relevant time by a dri,.er
who had no driving licence and was not even an authorised driver of E
respondent No. 1, as he had stolen the truck and the owner is therefore
not liable". Again in paragraph 13 the insurer pleaded that the "truck
at the time of the accident was being unauthorisedly used and Jriven
without the permission or authority of the owner. As the trnck was
being used without the authority of the owner, therefore, the owner is
not vicariously liable for the tort. The replying respondent is, therefore, F
also not liable."
The first respondent, the owner of the vehicle filed his written state-
ment on 16th November, 1961. In his statement he stated while dealing
with the merits in paragraph 1 that "this truck did not meet with any
accident nor was any intimation sent to the replying respondent". In
G
paragraph 2 he stated that "No such accident occurred as alleged in
• which the husband of the applicant may have been killed due to the
negligence of the driver of respondent No. 1. Allegation of negligence
on the part of the driver is denied as incorrect."
On these pleadings parties went to trial. The claimants examined 5
.witnesses AWs I to AWs 5. AW. 1 is Bachan Singh. He was sleeping H
on the night of occurrence on the roof of the Trade Union Office. The
witness and others heard hue and cry at night when the offending truck
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l S.C.R.

A ran over the deceased. Bachan Singh and others came down and
extricated the deceased and two other persons from underneath the
truck. The deceased died at the spot and two other injured were
removed to the Civil Hospital, Jullundur. AW. 2 is Darshan Singh. He
stated that he was sleeping in his truck on the night of the accident.

• He on hearing the alarm got up and saw the two constables where the
accident had taken place. Bhagwan Das was extricated from under-
neath the truck with two other injured persons. Bhagwan Das died at
the spot. According to the witness the accident took place at 2 A.M.
and the deceased was carried in the same offending truck to the
hospital. AW. 3 is not a material witness as he does not speak of the
c incident but only saw the dead body and identified it. AW. 4 is
Shiv Charan Das. He and another constable were on patrol duty on
the night of the occurrence. At 1 a.m. the truck came from Jullundur
side at a fast speed and turned towards the adda of the Union. Three
persons including the deceased were sleeping on the kach:> on cot
which were run over. The deceased was injured seriously. He along
D with others were removed to the Civil Hospital, Julhindur, in the same
truck. The witness lodged the F.I.R. with the A.S.I. who came at the
spot from Kartarpur. In cross-examination the witness stated "So far
as I remember Anoop Singh had no driving licence." AW. 5 w:is on
patrol duty along with AW. 4 and at about 1 a.m. he saw the truck
coming from Jullundur side with registration No. PNJ-6430 at a fast
E speed. The truck turned to its left and overran the three cots on which
three persons were sleeping and struck against the door of union office.
The sleepers on the cots were injured and Bhagwan Das had died
subsequently. According to the witness one Anoop. Singh was driving
the truck. In cross-examination he stated "I do not know if Anoop
Singh possessed the driving licence".

On the side of the respondents three witnesses RWs. 1 to 3 wece
examined. RW. 1 is the owner of the vehicle. He stated that on the
night of the occurrence they drove the truck from J ullundur to Jallo-
wal, his village, and parked it at 11.30 p.m. on the roadside. They left
G the truck and slept in their houses. They were informed by one Ishar
Singh that the truck was missing. They left in search of the truck at
about 1 a.m. at Bhogpur. At Bhogpur they learnt at 1.30 a.m. 'that the
.. •
said truck was involved in an accident. He did not know who removed
the truck. Though he went to report the loss of the truck to the police,
as he learnt that the truck was caught in an accident he did not go to
.H the police station and lodge the report about the theft of the vehicle.
He denied that Anoop Singh was driving the truck and caused the acci-
dent. RW. 2 is Anoop Singh. He stated that he did not know d~!ving
!l!SHAN DEVI & ORS, v. SIRBAKSH SINGH: & ANR. (Kailasam, J.) 305

and had not driven the truck in question nor did he cause any accident. A
• The evidence of R W. 3 is not material.

On the pleadin~ and the evidence referred to the Motor Accidents
Claims 11·ibunal came to the conclusion that the claimants had failed
to establish the identity of the driver and that the claimants were not
even aware of the name of the driver who had driven the offending B
truck. Thus the applicants had failed in proving their case. In view of
this finding the Claims Tribunal observed that it had no other alterna-
tive but to decide the issue against the applicants. Because ot this find-
ing it felt it was not necessary to discuss the other issues. The appeal
by the claimants was rejected by the High Court. The High Court
agreed with the finding of the Claims Tribunal and qbserved that c
"There is no doubt that the evidence on record is not enough to show
that Anup Singh or any other person directly or tacitly authorised by
Sirbaksh was driving the tmck at the time of accident. Anup
·Singh as is evident from the material on the record did not possess the
driving licence. It is difficult to believe that Sirbaksh Sing)i could have
.allowed him to drive his tmck without a driving licence," Holding that D
the truck was stolen by some irresponsible person who did not know
driving and caused ihe accident by his reckless driving the High Court
found that the owner of the truck cannot be held to be responsible. It
is distressing to note that neither the Claims Tribunal nor the High
Court considered the relevant evidence in the case. The claim was re-
E
jected by the Tribunal on the ground that the identity of the driver had
not been established and by the High Court on the ground that "It is
evident that Anoop Singh did not possess a driving licence and that
the truck was stolen by some irresponsible person who did not know
driving and that the owner cannot be held to be responsible".
F
We cannot help observing that the plea put forward by the insurer
is on the face of it frivolous and totally unacceptable. According to the
insurer by his written statement which was filed on 10th October, 1961
a month before the written statement of the owner was filed, it was
pleaded that somebody stole away the truck without the knowledge of
the owner or the driver. It was further contended that the vehicle was G
being driven at the relevant time by a person who had no drivin~
• licence and was not even an anthorised driver of respondent No. 1 as
he had stolen the tmck. The plea of the owner in his written statement
which was filed on 16th November. 1961 more than a month there-
.after is that ''This truck did not meet with any accident nor was any
intimation sent to the replying res11,2ndent". It may be noted that in this H
written statement which was fileoafter a fairly long interval there is
no allegation by the owner that the tmck was stolen. We do not know
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] ! S.C.R.

A on what basis the insurer about a month before the written statement
was filed by the owner alleged that the truck was stolen without the
knowledge of the owner or the driver. While the owner did not com-
plain about any theft of the vehicle the insurer professes further know·
ledge that the vehicle was driven by somebody who had no driving
licence without the authorisation of the owner.
B
The F.I.R. was lodged at the police station at 4-30 a.m. at Kartar-
pur which is 12 miles from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence
took place at about 2 a.m. In the F.I.R. which was lodged without any
delay, Shivcharan Das Constable, who is examined as AW. 4 stated'
that he was on patrol duty along with Joginder Nath and when they
c reached the P,UCCa road near Truck Stop Union Bhogpur the truck
No. 6430/PNJ which was being driven by Anoop Singh driver at a·
very fast speed and carelessly, came and turned to the left below the
road towards Truck Union. The truck overran the three cots and col-
lided against the doors of the room of Truck Union Office and stop-
ped. All the three cots were smashed and the three persons sleeping
D over them were seriously injured. He further stated that Anoop Singh
ran away leavirig the truck. The injured along with the deceased were
taken to the Civil Hospital Bhogpur for treatment. As the doctor was
not present the two injured were taken to Jullundur in the same track.
The F.I.R. was immediately registered. This witness in his evidence
corroborated what he stated in the F.I.R. The evidence Of A.W.4 was
E also corroborated by the testimony of AW. 5, Joginder Nath, who
was on patrol duty along with AW. 4. He stated that at about 1 a.m.
a truck came from Jullundur side with registration No. PNJ-6430
with fast speed. It turned to its left and overran the three cots in which
three persons were sleeping and struck against the door of the Union's
office. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected the evidence of
F
AWs. 4 and 5 on the ground that as the time of accident is said to be
1 a.m. it is not possible for the witnesses to have recognised the driver.
The evidence of AW. 4 was rejected as he failed to identify Anoop
Singh. AW. 5 stated that he knew Anoop Singh and that it was he
who was driving the truck and that Anoop Singh ran away after caus-
G ing the accident. Neither AW. 4 nor AW. 5 was asked that they wonld
not have been in a position to see the driver as they were about 30 to
40 yards away when the accident took place. According to AW. 4 the ••
deceased and the other injured were removed to the Bhogpur hospital
and from there to the Jullundur hospital in the same truck. We fail to
understand the basis on which the Claims Tribunal came to the con-
H clusion that the identity of the driver was not established. Equally,
unacceptable is the conclusion of 'ft:e High Court that "as suggested
by the counsel for the respondents the truck was stolen by some irres-
BISHAN DEVI & ORS. v. SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR. (Kailasam, J. 307

ponsibie person who did not know the driving and by his reckless act A·
caused the accident." There has been practically no discussion of the
evidence of AWs. 4 and 5. There is no reference to the prompt F.I.R.
lodged by AW. 4 who was on patrol duty wherein the material parti-
culars about the incident and the driver have been furnished.
The suggestion made by the counsel for the respondents that the
B
truck was stolen, as pointed earlier, was not pleaded by the owner of
the vehicle even though he filed his written statement on 16th Novem-
J ber, 1961, about a month after the date of the occurrence. All that
the owner stated was that the truck did not meet with any accident.
When he was examined he stated that he parked the truck at 11-30
p.m. on the roadside but when he returned he found the truck miss- c
ing. He left in search of the trnck at 1 a.m. and learnt at 1-30 a.m. that
the truck was involved in an accident. Though he went to report the
loss of the truck as he learnt that it was involved in an accident he did
. not go to the police station and lodge a report regarding theft. This
statement is directly contrary to what he stated in the writen statement
that the truck did not meet with any accident. The insurer who filed his D
written statement a month before the owner filed the written statement
stated that the truck was stolen by somebody and that a report to the
police was made to this effect. No such report was ever made to the
police and this statement is clearly false. Later in the course of the
statement the insurer stated that the truck did not meet with any
accident. He further went to the extent of stating that somebody E
stole away the truck without the knowledge of the owner of the driver,
and that if at all it is only the person who was driving the truck who is
liable and not the owner. It is significant to note that no one was
examined to substantiate the facts alleged in the written statement of
the insurer. The insurer was not satisfied with the above mentioned
false, frivolous and irresponsible allegations. He proceeded to state that F
the driver who was driving the vehicle did not have a driving licence
and was not the authorised driver of the owner as he had stolen the
truck. Apart from not examining himself the insurer did not make any
attempt to substantiate his plea that the driver who was driving the
vehicle did not have the driving licence. We are constrained to state

•• that the plea taken by both the owner and the insurer is palpably false
and made without any sense of responsibility with· a view to somehow
escape the liability. It is most unbecoming of an insurance company to
have acted in this callous and irresponsible manner.
There is no finding by the Claims Tribunal that the truck was driven
by an unauthorized person. The High Court found that the truck ought H·
to have been stolen and driven by some irresponsible person who did
not know the driving. The High Court has stated "Anoop Singh as is
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 1 S.C.R.

evident from the material on record did not possess the driving licence''.
The evidence that Anoop Singh was driving the vehicle was given by
AWs. 4 and 5, the policemen on patrol duty. According to AW. 4
the truck was driven by Anoop Singh. In fact in his F.l.R. he stated
that it was Anoop Singh who was driving the truck. In cross-examina-
tion the witness stated that the case against Anoop Singh is still pend-
ing in the court and as far as he could remember he had no driving
licence. AW. 5 when questioned stated : "I do not know if Anoop
Singh possessed the driving licence". According to the owner Anoop
Singh was not the driver and it was wrong to say that Anoop Singh
was driving the truck and caused the accident. Anoop Singh when
examined as RW.2 stated that he did not know driving and bad
not driven the truck in question nor did he cause any accident. As we
have pointed out earlier the evidence of the owner of the truck is totally
unreliable. The evidence of RW. 2 is self-serving and is made with a
view to escape the prosecution that was launched against him. The only
material ahout Anoop Singh not having a driving licence is the state-
ment of AW. 4 in cross-examination that he did not remember whether
Anoop Singh had a licence and that of AW. 5 that he did not know
whether Anoop Singh possessed the driving licence. It is surprising that
the High Court observed "It is evident from the material on record that
Anoop Singh did not possess the driving licence."
Under Sec. 96(2) (b) (ii) the insurer can defend a claim for
compensation on the ground that the vehicle was driven by a person
who was not duly licensed. Apart from making the averment in his
written statement the insurer did not take any steps to establish that
the vehicle was driven by a person who was not properly licensed. The
evidence of AWs. 4 and 5 who have been examined clearly establishes
F that Anoop Singh was driving the vehicle. The two stray suggestions
and the reply given by the two witnesses is not sufficient to establish
that Anoop Singh was not licensed to drive a truck. It is the duty of
the insurer to have substantiated his plea. We have no hesitation in
rejecting the insurer's plea as false especially as the owner who filed the
written statement a month later did not support the farmer's plea.
G

-•
The deceased at the time of his death was working as Patwari and
was drawing Rs. 109/- p.m. as his salary. The wife of the deceased
Bishan Devi as AW. 6 has deposed that the deceased was drawing a
salary of Rs. 109/50 per month out of which he used to handover
Rs. 100/· to her for household expenses. The deceased had many
more years to go and his contribution to the household which consisted
of his wife and four children would have increased. In the circum-
stances we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs o'f
BISHAN DEVI & ORS. v. SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR. (Kailasam, J.) 309

• Rs. 2,500/- in all the courts is payable by the two respondents to her
. and the four children. The wife and the four children will take the
amount equally. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- will bear interest at 6%
per anoum from the date of the claim Le. from 4th September, 1961.
There will be a joint decree against both the respondents.

... The instant case brings into focus the difficulties experienced by
dependants in obtaining relief before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tn"bunal. The victim in this case Bhagwan Das was run over by a
Motor vehicle on the night between 8th and 9th July, 1961 leaving
behind him his wife Bishan Devi and four minor children. For Eighteen
long years they have been before courts asking for some compensa-
tion for the death of their bread-winner due to rash and negligent driv- c
ing of a motor vehicle. One is tempted to remark that they would
have been better of but for their hope of getting some relief in courts.
They not only had to spend their time in courts but to borrow to fight
for their rights. It is co=on knowledge that such helpless and des-
perate condition is exploited by unscnipulous/ persons who manage to
get away with the bulk of the compensation: money if and when the D
claimant> succeed in getting it.
The law as it stands requires that the claimant should prove that
the driver of the vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The
burden thu• placed is very heavy and difficult to discharge by the clai-
mant. The records of police investigation are not made available to the
Tribunal. The officers who investigated the accident are seldom avail-
able to give evidence before the Claims Tribunal and assist in coming
to a proper conclusion. The insurance company in quite a few cases, as
·in the present one, takes an unreasonable stand and raises all sorts
of untenable pleas just to thwart relief to the dependants. In many of
the claims it tnms out to be beyond the capacity of the claimant to
maintain his claim in a court of law.
Due to the inordinate delay in disposal of .claim petitions before the
motor Claims Tribunal the badly needed relief to the claimants is not
available for several years. Further time is taken in appeals. All along
the dependants will have to carry on without any relief. It has been
-~-
time and again pointed out by courts that insistence of proof of rash G
and negligent driving causes considerable hardship on the claimants.
•' •
We may point out that repeated suggestions have been made by .
this Court and several High Courts expressing the desirability of bring-
ing a· social insurance which would provide for direct payment to the
dependants of the victim. Titls Court in Mi1Ul B. Mehta and Anr. v.
•
' Balkrishna Ramchandra NaY_an and Anr.(') ·has referred to the deci-
. ' (1) 1977 Accidents Claims Journa1....:...11s.
-
,..... "'
~

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l s'.-&i; <
'
"I , •
.A · sion of the Kerala High Court' in Kasavan Nair v. State Insuran!t!'"
Officer(') where the High Court expressed itself thus : · :"'.
'.'Out of a .sense. of humanity and having due regard to .
('
-.·;~
'• ~ i
\,.
the handicap of the innocent victim in establishing the negli-
gence of the operator of the vehicle a blanket liability must be
B · cast on the insurers."
JI.
The Madras High Court in Mis. Ruby Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V.
Govindaraj and Ors. ( 2 ) has suggested the necessity of having social
insurance to provide cover for the claimants irrespective of proof of i
nei;!igence to a limited extent say Rs. 2501- to Rs. 300/- a month .. f
C In a recent decision in the State of Haryana v. Darshan Devi &
Ors. ( 3 ) this Court observed : -
"Now that insurance against third party risk is compul-·
sory and motor insurance is nationalised and transport itself
is largely by State Undertakings, the principle of no fault lia-
D bility and on the spot settlement of claims should become ~·(' ·--"'
national policy." '
Unless these ideas are accepted by the legislature and embodied in
appropriate enactments Courts are bound to administer and give effect

E
to the law as it exists today.
· · It is for the legislature to make provisions for immediate and ade- ·
quate relief to the dependants in motor aecident cases. The legislature
i
'-. '
\

may consider making the liability to pay minimiim compensation abso-
lute as is provided for to the dependants of victims in rail and air '•
.
. {.

accidents. When a person dies in a motor accident, the number of his ; J
dependants and the period of their dependency. may be ascertained. ~·
F The minimum compensation may be paid every month to the depen-
dants according to their share for the period to which they are entitled.
The insurance companies are now nationalised and the necessity
for awarding !Ump sum pa}>ment to secure the interest of the dependants
is no longer there. Regular monthly payment could be made through
G one of the nationalised banks nearest to the place of residence of the "
dependants. Payment of monthly instahnents and avoidance of lump
sum payment would reduce substantially the burden on the insurer and
consequently of the insured. Ordinaii!y in arriving at the lump sum
payable, the Court takes the figure at' about 12 years payment. ThuS
in the case o! monthly compensation of Rs. 250/- payable, the lump
H (I) 1971 A. C. J. 219.
(2) A. A. 0. No. 607of1973 & 296 of 1974 decided on 13-12-76.
(3) 1979 Accidents Claims Tribunal 205.

'
•

·(:tsHAN DEVI & ORS. v. SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR. (Kailasam, J.) 311

~r· ',~ arrived at woukl be between 30,000/- and 35,000/-. Regular
monthly payment of Rs. 250/~ can be made from the interest of the
A

lump sum alone and the payment will be restricted only for the period
o~ dependency of the severail dependants. In most cases it is seen that
a lump sum payment is not to the advantage of the dependants as
ge part of it is frittered away during litigation and by payment to
.·~rsons •assisting in the litigation. It may also be provided that if the B·
dependants are not satisfied with the minimum compensation payable
they will be at liberty to pursue their remedies before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal.

c
N.V.K. Appeal allowed.