Supreme Court of India

NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT CORP.versusGOURABAI AND ORS.

Citation: 2009 INSC 661
Decided: 1 May 2009
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Holding

The award is unsustainable because the injuries were not caused by a vehicular accident; therefore, the appeal is allowed and the award set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by North West Karnataka Road Transport Corp. against an award of Rs.2,59,400 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to the family of a deceased person. The appellant argued that the deceased suffered a fatal head injury after falling from a height of 8‑10 feet in his own house, not from any accident involving the corporation’s bus. Evidence, including a doctor’s report and exhibit R‑1, clearly showed the injury was non‑vehicular. The MACT and the Karnataka High Court had disregarded this evidence, deeming there was an indirect admission of a vehicular accident and upheld the award. The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of proof that the injury arose from a motor vehicle accident, the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be sustained, and set aside the award. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by a vehicular accident within the meaning of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is sustainable in the absence of such proof.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 166vehicular accidentcompensationMotor Accident Claims Tribunalaward set asideevidencemedical reportcivil appeal

Judgment

                         (2009] 9 S.C.R. 942
                                                                           1-




A     NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT CORP.
                                  v.
                         GOURABAI AND ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2009)
                             MAY 1, 2009
B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]                                 ~

                                                                                       -:
         Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 166 - Injuries sustained
c by deceased were not on account of any vehicular accident
    - Hence, award by MACT not sustainable - High Court erred
    in upholding the award passed by MACT.                                      .:..

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3171 of 2009.
D
        From the Judgment & Order dated 27.2.2007 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 2098 of 2005
    (MV).

E       R.S. Hedge and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.

        Mallikarjun S. Mycar and E.R. Sumathy for the
    Responderit~.                                                     >-
                                                                                .,.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
        DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard.

        2. Leave granted.

         3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
G   learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing
    the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the said appeal
    was to an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
    No. VII, Bijapur (in short MACT). An award of Rs.2,59,400/- was
    made. The main contention of the appellant before the MACT
H                                  942
       NORTH WEST KARNATAKA RD. TRANSPORT                     943
       CORP. v. GOURABAI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    as well as before the High Court was that the deceased did A
    not sustain any injury in any accident involving the. bus of the
    corporation. Reference was made to the evidence of the
    doctor, who had admitted the deceased to the hospital, that the
    deceased had suffered head injury due to fall from the height
    of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Though this was specifically B
    stated in the written statement, the MACT and the High court
    brushed aside the same stating that there was indirect
    admission about the deceased having sustained injury in
    vehicular accident. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and
i
    exhibit R-1 does not appear to have been looked into by the     c
~   MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the
\
    document R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated
    that he did not know what was written in the document and his
    signature was taken on one age. This conclusion overlooks
    from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece D
    of paper mentioning something which is not correct. Exhibit R-
    1 establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that the injuries
    sustained were not on account of any vehicular accident. That
    being so, the MACT and the High Court were not justified in
    making any award. The order of the MACT and High Court E
    stands set aside.

        4. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.

    B.B.B.                                       Appeal allowed.




(

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search