Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s award, holding that the driver of the scooter and the owner of the scooter are jointly and severally liable for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on credible eye‑witness evidence.

Summary

The respondents, parents of a deceased pillion rider, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for death caused by a bus and a scooter. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding the appellant had not proved negligence. On appeal, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed the decision, relying on the sole eye‑witness PW‑5 who testified that the appellant (Jitender Thakur) was driving the scooter and that both he and the bus driver were negligent, and held both the driver and the scooter’s owner jointly liable for Rs.2 lakh with interest. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing inconsistencies in his statements and lack of his examination. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s findings, noting the credibility of the eye‑witness and the appellant’s changing versions, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the award of compensation.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant who was driving the scooter is liable for the death of the pillion rider under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether the owner of the scooter is jointly and severally liable for compensation.
Whether the High Court erred in relying on the testimony of the sole eye‑witness and overturning the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 166compensationmotor accident claims tribunaljoint and several liabilityeye‑witness testimonypillion ridercivil appeal

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 601

'"""
,..;,. KRISHAN GOPAL A
v.
SANDHYA DEVI & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 2009
FEBRUARY 18, 2009
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

"i
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 :

~ s. 166 - Compensation - Claimant's son died in an
'
accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus and c
driver of scooter of appellant - Deceased pillion rider on
scooter driven by appellant - Said scooter owned by
'~
appellant's father - Claim petition - Award of Rs. 2 lakhs with
9% interest p.a. by High Court holding both appellant and his
father liable - lnteirference with - Held: Not called for-Appellant
D
gave different stands as to occurrence of incident - More so,
-- did not come forward for his examination-High Court's reliance
on prosecution witness who was the only eye witness to the
actual accident, not improbable.
Respondents filed claim petition that their son died E
in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving
\
of the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the scooter;
and that the appellant no. 2 was the riding the scooter
-( owned by appellant no. 1 and their son was a pillion rider.
There were different versions of the accident by the owner F
and bus driver and the appellants. Apart from the different
versions, the appellant no.2 took different stands in the
FIR lodged and before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
as to how the accident actually occurred. PW.5, who
witnessed the accident, stated that appellant no. 2 was
G
driving the scooter and deceased was a pillion rider and
~ accident was due to negligence of both the bus driver
and appellant no 2. The scooter did not skid and deceased

-.
_,
died as handle of scooter pierced his stomach. MACT
601 H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
~

A dismissed the petition. However, High Court allowed the ;_
claim. It awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with 9%
interest p.a. till deposit of amount, holding both the
appellants liable. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1.1 From the facts the view taken by the High
Court, relying on the evidence of P.W.5, does not appear
to- be improbable. Apart from the fact that P.W.5 was the r-

only eye-witness to the actual accident, the High Court _.....
;

c also disbelieved the version projected on behalf of the
· appellants on account of the different stands taken by the
appellant No.2 as to how the accident actually occurred.
.f
While at the very initial stage it had been contended by
the appellant No.2 that the accident had occurred even
., before the bus had arrived at the scene, at a later stage it
D
was contended that it was the bus drive~'s negligence
which had caused the accident. High Court also took note ....
of the fact that the appellant No.2 had not come forward
to be examined as to how the accident had actually taken
place. [Para 11] [606-B-D]
E
1.2 The reversal of the Award of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal by the High Court cannot be said to be
perverse or without any basis and there is no reason to
interfere with the same. [Para 12] [606-E] -..
F CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1104
of 2009
From the final Judgement and Order dated 29.11.2005 of
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO No. 46 of
G 2002
Ravi Bakshi and Yash Pal Dhingra, for the Appellant. _. ,,-
Rajesh Gupta, Harpreet Singh and Sumit Sharma (for
M/s. K.J. John & Co.), for the Respondents.
H The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
f
......
'

KRISHAN GOPAL V. SANDHYA DEVI & ORS. 603

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. A
~"
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondents herein are the parents of one Jitender
Sharma, who died in an accident on 21 s December, 1998. The
respondents filed a claim petition, being No.39 of 1999, which B
was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuitu,
on 1st December, 2001. Against the said order of dismissal of
-· their claim, the respondents preferred an appeal, being FAO
No.46 of 2002, in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla,
which was allowed in favour of the respondent nos.1 and 2 c
1
herein on 29 h November, 2005. By virtue of the said decision,
the High Court held that Jitender Sharma had died due to the
rash and negligent driving of Jitender Thakur, the Appellant No.2
herein, while he was driving the scooter owned by the Appellant
No.1 (father oJ Appellant No.2) and that both of them were jointly
D
!
and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, together
1(~

with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 6tti October,
1999, till deposit of the amount. They were also directed to pay
the costs of the appeal to the respondents assessed at
Rs.3,000/-.
E
3. The appellants have filed the instant appeal against the
said decision of the High Court.
4. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the
. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and the High Court allowed
the same, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts leading to F
the filing of the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
st
5. On 21 December, 1998, while the Appellant No.2
herein was riding a scooter belonging to the Appellant No.1,
Krishan Gopal Thakur, there was an accident in which the said
G
scooter and a Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus which
was proceeding from Kullu towards Manali, were said to have
been involved. According to the claimants, the accident had
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the bus as well as the driver of the scooter. As far as the
H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A owner and driver of the bus are concerned, it was their case .....
that no collusion had at all taken place between the scooter and
the bus. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, it is
their case that the scooter was being driven by the deceased
himself and the Appellant No.2 was the pillion rider on the
B scooter. According to them, the accident had taken place due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in question. ....
On the materials before it the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the claimants had failed to prove .... "
that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the bus
c driver and dismissed the claim petition accordingly.
6. In appeal, it was observed that the main question which
arose in the .appeal was as to who was driving the scooter at
the time of the accident. In the FIR (FIR No.255 of 1998) it has
been shown that the same was recorded at the instance of
D Jitender Thakur son of Krishan Kumar, who is the Appellant No.2
herein. The FIR indicates that the complainant, Jitender Thakur .,.
and deceased Jitender Sharma, had gon~ to Haripur and were,
thereafter, coming on his scooter which skidded on some sand
lying on the road. At the same time, one HRTC bus came from
E the opposite side which, however, did not hit the scooter and
they had suffered the injuries even before the bus reached them.
The accident was, however, witnessed by one Rewati Devi, who
was examined as PW.5 and deposed that while she was
drinking tea in the Dhaba of Milap Chand, she saw Jitender )

F Thakur driving the scooter with Jitender Sharma sitting as the
pillion rider. At the same time, a bus was coming from the
opposite side and collided with the scooter due to the fault of
both the bus driver as also the driver of the scooter. She also
deposed that Jitender Sharma who was sitting at the pillion of
the scooter, died as the handle of the scooter pierced his
G
stomach. She categorically stated that the scooter did not skid
on the spot as had been indicated in the First Information Report.
7. From what has been mentioned hereinabove, there
appears to be two versions of the accident in which Jitender
H Sharma died. The version of the claimant is that the scooter in
KRISHAN GOPAL V. SANDHYA DEVI & ORS. 605
[ALTAMAS KABIR J.]

..... question was being driven by JitenderThakur, the Appellant No.2 A
herein, and that the deceased was the pillion rider. Jitender
Thakur, who was also the complainant, had, at the initial stage
while lodging the First Information Report, stated that the scooter
had slipped on a patch of sand and that the .bus was not involved
in the accident and that injuries to the deceased had already B
occurred before the bus reached the scene of the accident.
Subsequently, however, he changed his tune and contended that
_.
the accident had occurred on account of the rash driving and
-l
negligence of the bus driver.
8. Apart from the said two conflicting versions of the c
incident, as depicted by the Appellant No.2, there is another
dispute as to who was actually driving the scooter belonging to
the Appellant No.1. While it has been claimed by the Appellant
No.2 that it was the deceased who was driving the scooter and
that he was the pillion rider and was not, therefore, responsible D
I. for the accident, his version has been contradicted by P.W.5
t Rewati Devi, who has categorically stated that she had
witnessed the accident and that it was the Appellant No.2 who
was driving the scooter and that the deceased was a pillion
rider. E
9. The trial court accepted the version of the Appellant No.2
that he was thE~ pillion rider while the deceased was driving the
scooter and consequently came to a finding that the complainant
of
had not been able to prove that the Appellant No.2 was
responsible for the accident in which Jitender Sharma died and, F
therefore, rejected the claim petition of the respondents herein.
10. The High Court, however, in appeal accepted the
version of the accident as narrated by P.W.5 Rewati Devi and
has come to a definite finding that it was not the deceased, but
G
the Appellant No.2 who was, in fact, driving the scooter. The
High Court, therefore, disagreed with the finding of the Tribunal
that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident and
held the Appellant No.2 to be the only person responsible for
the accident and that since the Appellant No.1 was the owner of
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A the scooter, he too was liable for payment of compensation to ho
the claimants, who are the respondents herein.
11. From the facts as narrated hereinabove, the view taken
by the High Court, relying on the evidence of P.W.5, does not
appear to be improbable. Apart from the fact that P.W.5 was
B the only eye-witness to the actual accident, the High Court has
also disbelieved the version projected on behalf of the appellants
on account of the different stands taken by the Appellant No.2 ,..
as to how the accident actually occurred. While at the very initial !-

stage it had been contended by the Appellant No.2 that the
c accident had occurred even before the bus had arrived at the
scene, at a later stage it was contended that it was the bus
driver's negligence which had caused the accident. The High
Court also took note of the fact that the Appellant No.2 had not
come forward to be examined as to how the accident had
D actually taken place.
-~

12. The reversal of the Award of the Motor Accident Claims
\
Tribunal by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse _or }

without any· basis and we see no reason to interfere with the
same. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, with costs
E assessed at Rs.20,000/-.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.
)-
.....,._.,,
-~