KUSUM LATA & ORS.versusSATBIR & ORS.

                                                                       --
                        (2011) 3 S.C.R. 480


A                      KUSUM LATA & ORS.
                                  v.
                           SATBIR & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2269 of 2011)
                         MARCH 02, 2011
B
      [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

        MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:

c      s. 166 - Fatal motor accident - Claim petition -
  Appreciation of evidence - Claim disallowed by Tribunal as
  a/so by High Court on the ground that in the FIR the nu......ber
  of offending vehicle and the name of the driver were not
  mentioned - HELD: In motor accident claims, claimants are
0 not required to prove the case like in a criminal trial - Courts
  must keep this distinction in mind - In the instant case, the
  incident was witnessed by the brother of the deceased and a
  co-villager- The brother of victim rushed him to hospital while
  the co-villager chased the offending vehicle and caught the
  driver - He gave the name of the driver and number of the
E vehicle to police the following day - There is no reason why
  Tribunal and High court would ignore such an evidence -
  Further, even though the age of the victim was determined to
  be 29 years, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 16
  instead of 17 - Accordingly, compensation amount would
F come to Rs.3,93,4281- apart from funeral expenses and loss
  of consortium - However, exercising power under Article 142
  of the Constitution and considering the number of claimants
   which include a widow, two minor daughters and one minor
  son, and the deceased being the sole bread earner, an
G amount of Rs. 6 lakh including funeral expenses and loss of
  consortium, is allowed with 7% interest from date of
   application till payment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles
   136 and 142 -Evidence.

H                                480
--          KUSUM LATA & ORS. v. SATBIR & ORS.
                  ..~.;~,-# ~.f\f.;~-·~~::·· ·.
                                                         481
        ,,.,-%1


       A 29 year old villager while walking on foot was hit     A
  by a tempo. His brother rushed him to hospital where he
  succumbed to his injuries. The claim petition of the
  dependants filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980
  was disallowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as
  also by the High Court mainly for the reason that the         B
  number of the: offending vehicle and the name of its driver
  )vere not mentioned In the FIR.

      Allowing the appeal filed by the dependants of the
  deceased, the Court
                                                                c
        HELD: 1.1 It is well known that in a case relating to
  motor accident claims, the claimants are nQtrequired to
  prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal
  trial. Courts must keep this distinction in mind. [para 9]
  (487-A~B]                                                     D

        1.2 In .the instant case, evidence has come on record
   from the deposition of ono 'DK~ who clearly proved the
   number of the vehicle. His statement is that he was going
   along with one 'AK' on a scooter to know the condition       E-
 . of. one of their relative in the Hospital. As they reached
   near the place of incident, a tempo bearing No. HR-34-
   8010 of white colour being driven in a rash and negligent
   manner came from behind and overtook their scooter.
   The witness saw that the tempo hit the victim, as a result   F
   of which he fell down but the tempo did not stop; they
 _ followed the same and caught the driver. On their asking,
   the driver disclosed his name. Thereafter, they went to
   the Hospital and on the following day when they were
   returning, they found police and other persons were
   present at the spot. The witness told the name of the        G
   driver and gav~ the number of tile tempo to the police.
   This witr.ess claims to have seen the incident with his
   cwn eyos. When he was cross-examined, he stated that
   the deceased. was not related to him nor was he his
   neighbou~; He w~s hi~ co-villager. He also told that he      H
    482    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 3 S.C.R.
                                                                --
A knows the driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR-34-8010.
  There Is no reason why the Tribunal and the High Court
  would ignore the otherwise reliable evidence of the
  witness. In fact, no cogent reason has been assigned
  either by the Tribunal or by the High Court for discarding
B the evidence of the witness. The so-called reason that as
  his name was not mentioned in the FIR, so It was not
  possible for him to see the Incident, is not a proper
  assessment of the fact-situation in this case. [Para 7 and
  9] [485-F-H; 486-A-D; 486-G-H; 427-A-B]
c       Bimla Devi and others v. Himacha/ Road Transport
    Corporation and others. 2009 (6) SCR 362 = (2009) 13 SCC
    530 - relied on.

       1.3 When a person sees that his brother, being
D knocked down by a speeding vehicle is suffering In pain
  and is in need of immediate medical attention, that person
  is obviously under a traumatic condition. His first attempt
  will be to take his brother to a hospital or to a doctor. It
  is but natural for such a person not to be conscious of
E the presence of any person in the vicinity especially when
  the witness did not stop at the spot after the accident and
  gave a chase to the offending vehicle. Under such mental
  strain If the brother of the victim forgot to take down the
  number of the offending vehicle it was also not unnatural.
F [para 8) [486-E-G]
      2.1 In respect of the finding reached by the Tribunal
  on the assessment of compensation, this Court finds that
  the Tribunal has used the multiplier of 16, even though
  the age of the deceased has been determined to be 29.
G The Tribunal erred by applying the multiplier of 16.
  However, considering the age of the victim, the multiplier
  of 17 should be applied. It is not in dispute that in the
  instant case, the claim for compensation has been filed
  u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the multiplier of 17 is
H applied then the amount comes to Rs.3,93,428.45 apart
--·      KUSUM LATA & ORS. v. SATBIR & ORS. .              483

    from the amount· of funeral expenses and the aMount           A
    gr~tited\tot'loss of cdnsortlurn. Taking an these together,
 ' the amount comes to ~ little'more than four lacs of rupees.
   ·Cpara'111 [487·E~Hr · · ·

     . Sar/a Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport· .
  Corporation and another 2009 (G) SCR 1098 =(2009) 6 SCC B
  121 .. relieti on.
        2.2 The Court, however, in exercise of its power
   under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and
   considering the fact that the victim was the sole wage         C
   earner In the family and he left behind three minor
   children and a widow, is of the opinion that for doing
   complete justice in the case and by taking a broad and
   comprehensive view of the matter, an amount of Rs.6 lacs
   including the amounts of consortium and funeral                o
   expenses would meet the ends of justice. The Court,
 . therefore, grants a compensation of Rs.6 lacs along with
   interest @ 7% from the date of presentation ofthe claim
   petition till the date of actual payment [para 12] [488-A-
  C]                                                              E
      2.3 In respect of the dispute about licence, the
  Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company has
  to pay and then may recover it from the owner of the
  vehicle. The insurance company is to pay the aforesaid
  amount in the form of a bank draft in the name of appellant     F
  no.1 with interest and deposit the same in the Tribunal.
  This direction should be strictly complied with by the
  Insurance Company. The judgments of the Tribunal and
  the High Court are set aside. [para 13-14] [488-0-E]
                                                                  G
      National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh
  and others 2004 (1) SCR 180= (2004) 3 sec 297 - relied on.
                       Case Law Reference: ·
       2009 (5) SCR 1098        relied on           para 10       H
    484      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 3 S.C.R.
                                                                      -
A         2009 (6) SCR 362        relied on             para 11
          2004 (1) SCR 180          relied on         para 13
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2269 of 2011.
B
         From the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2010 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in EAO. No. 4047
    of 2006.
          Vikas K. Sangwan for the Appellants.
c         Sunil Mund, M.K. Dua for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.
D        2. Heard learned counsel for the claimant, learned counsel
    for the insurance company and also the learned counsel for
    respondent nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the
    offending vehicle.
      3. In this case the claim for compensation fil~d by the
E appellants was concurrently denied both by the Motor Accident
  Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') as also by the High
  Court.
        4. The material facts of the case are that on 12th January,
F 2005 while Surender Kumar, the victim, was going on foot, he
  was hit by a vehicle from behind as the vehicle was driven
  rashly and negligently and was also in a high speed. The victim
  sustained several injuries and was rushed to the hospital and
  was declared dead. After the said incident the appellants,
G namely, Kusum Lata, wife of the victim and three of his children,
  two are minor daughters and one is a minor son, filed a claim
  petition.
         5. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the
    Tribunal ir:i its award dated 14.6.2006 framed three issues for
H
--          KUSUM LATA & ORS. v. SATBIR & ORS.                    485
                [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     adjudication. Of.those three issues; since the Tribunal came to      A
     a finding against the appellants on the first issue, the' other
     findings of the Tribunal in the second and third issue were,
     according to Tribunal, of no avail to the appellants. On the first
     issue the Tribunal came to a finding thatthe involvement of the
     offending vehicle being tempo No:HR-34-8010 has not been             B
     proved and since on this issue the Tribunal's finding went
     against the appellants, no compensation was awarded. On an
     appeal filed against the said_ award, the High Court by the
     impugned judgment dated 21.5.2010 also affirmed the finding
     of the. Tribunal.                                                    c
          6. The main reason why both the Tribunal and the High
     Court reached their respective findings that vehicle No.HR-34-
     801 O was not involved in the accident are primarily because
     of the fact that in the FIR which was lodged by one Ashok
     -Kumar, brother of the victim, neither the number of the vehicle     D
     nor the name of the driver was mentioned.
           7~ Admittedly, the facts were that the brother of the
     deceased, Ashok Kumar while walking on the road heard some
     noise and then saw that a white colour tempo had hit his brother E
     and sped away. Immediately, he found that his brother, being
     seriously injured, was in an urgent need of medical aid and he
     took him to the hospital. Under such circumstances it may be
     natural for him not to note the number of the offending vehicle.
     That may be perfectly consistent with normal human conduct.
     Therefore, that by itself cannot justify the findings reached by F
     the Tribunal and which have been affirmed by the High Court. _
     In the present case, evidence has come on record from the
     deposition of one Dheeraj Kumar, who clearly .proved the
     number of the vehicle. The evidence of Dhe~raj Kumar is that
     he was going along with one Ashok Kumar on a scooter to G
     know the condition of one of their relative in Mahendergarh
     Hospital. As they reached at turning at Mahendergarh road a
     tempo bearing No. HR-34-8010 of white colour being driven
     in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and overtook
     their scooter. Dheeraj Kumar was not driving the scooter. H L            •
                                                                        --
   486      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A Oheeraj Kumar saw that the tempo hit Surender, the victim, as
  a result of which he fell down but the tempo did not stop after
  the accident. However, the evidence of Dheeraj Kumar Is that
  they followed the same and caught the driver. On their asking,
  the driver disclosed his name as Satbir son of Shri Ram Avtar.
B Thereafter, they went to Mahendergarh HO$pltal and on the next
  day when they were returning, they found police and other
  persons were present at the spot. Dheeraj Kumar told the name
  of the driver and gave the number of the tempo to the police.
  Dheeraj Kumar claims to have seen the incident with his own
c eyes. When Dheeraj Kumar was cross-examined, he stated that
  the deceased Surender is not related to him nor was he his
  neighbour. He was his co-villager. Dheeraj Kumar also told that
  he knows the driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR-34·8010. He
  denied all suggestions that he was giving his evidence to help
0 the victim. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have refused
  to accept the presence of DheeraJ Kumar as his name was not
  disclosed in the FIR by the brother of the victim.
       8. This Court Is unable to appreciate the aforesaid
  approach of the Tribunal and the High Court. This Court is of
E the opinion that when a person is seeing that his brother, being
  knocked down by a speeding vehicle, was suffering in pain and
  was in need of immediate medical attention, that person is
  obviously under a traumatic condition. His first attempt will be
  to take his brother to a hospital or to a doctor. It is but natural
F for such a person not to be conscious of the presence of any
  person In the vicinity especially when Dheeraj did not stop at
  the spot after the accident and gave a chase to the offending
  vehicle. Under such mental $train If the brother of the victim
  forgot to take down the number of the offending vehlele It wa•
G also not unnatural.
       9. There Is no reason why the Tribunal and the High Court
  would Ignore the otherwise reliable evidence of Dhnraj Kumar.
  In fact, no cogent reason has been a1signed either by the
  Tribunal or by the High Court for dl!icarding the evidence of
H Oheeraj Kumar. The so~called rea$on that as the name of
--       KUSUM LATA & ORS. v. SATBIR & ORS.                        487 .
            . [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
 Oheeraj Komar Was not mentioned in· the FIR, so it was not                A
                                                              a
 possible for Dheeraj Kumar to see the incident, is riot proper
 assessment of the fact~situation in this case. It is well known
 that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants
 are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done
 in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.        B
                                                                     .
      10. Reference in this connection may be made to the
 decision of this Court in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal
 Road Transport Corporation and others ((2009) 13 SCC 530],
 in which the relevant observation on this point has been made
        .
 and which is very pertinent
       I J   •
                         .
                         ~
                             and is
                                  .. quoted
                                      .
                                   ~, :-   '
                                            below:- ·
                                                 'l
                                                                           C
       •:1n .a situation .of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken
       a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne
       in mind that strict proof of. an accident caused by a
       particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible           0
       to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely
     · to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance
     - of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable
       doubt could not have been applied."
       11. In respect of the firiding reached by the Tribunal on the E
 ·assessment of compensation, this Court finds that the Tribunal
  has used the multiplier of 16, even though the age of the
  deceased has been determined to be 29. We find that the
  Tribunal erred by applying the multiplier of 16. However,
  censidering the age of the victim, the multiplier of 17 should be F
  applied in view of the decision of this Court in Sar/a Verma
  (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
  reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, and the c:hart at page.139. It is
  not in cli~pute that in the instant case the claim for compensation
  has been flied un(ler Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. G
  This Court finds that If the multiplier of.17 is applied then the
  amo1mt comes to Rs.3,93.426.45 f:lpart from the arnount of
  funeral eXPenses and the amount grt1nted'for loss of consortium.
  Taking all these together the amount comes to a little more than
  four lacs of rupees.                                                H
                                                                         .
                                                                         '



                                                                             --
          488      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 3 S.C.R.


      A         12. The Court, however, in exercise of its power under
          Article 142 and considering the number of claimants, of which
          three are minor children, is of the opinion that for doing complete
          justice in the case and by taking a broad and comprehensive
          view of the matter, an amount of Rs.6 lacs including the
      e   amounts of consortium and funeral expenses would meet the
          ends of justice. The Court, therefore, grants a compensation
          of Rs.6 lacs considering the fact that the victim was the sole
          wage earner in the family and he left behind three minor children
          and a widow. The said amount is to be paid along with interest
      c   @ 7% from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the
          date of actual payment.
             13. In respect of the dispute about licence, the Tribunal has
        held and, in our view rightly, that the insurance company has to
        pay and then may recover it from the owner of the vehicle. This
      D Court is affinning that direction in view of the principles laid down
        by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of National
          Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others
          reported in (2004) 3 sec 297.
      E      14. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgments of the
        Tribunal and the Higli Court are set aside. The insurance
        company is to pay the aforesaid amount in the fonn of a bank
        draft in the name of appellant no.1 with interest as aforesaid
        within a period of six weeks from date and deposit the same
      F in the Tribunal. This direction should be strictly complied with
        by the Insurance Company.
...          15. This Court directs the Tribunal to take steps for opening
        a bank account in the name of the appellant no.1 in a
        Nationalised Bank and deposit the demand draft in that
      G account. If, however, there is any bank account in the name of
        the appellant no.1, the demand draft is to be deposited in that
        bank account.
                16. No costs.
      H R.P.                                              Appeal allowed.