Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Finding on Negligence in Motor Accident Case: Mohar Sai vs. Gayatri Devi (27 April 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 336

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Who is responsible when a motor accident occurs, and the evidence about who was driving is contradictory? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal motorcycle accident. The court had to decide whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s finding that the motorcycle was driven by the appellant, not the deceased. This case highlights the importance of evaluating evidence in motor accident claims and the principle of contributory negligence.

Case Background

On 14th November 2006, a tragic motorcycle accident occurred, leading to the death of Krishna Kumar Sahu. The accident took place when Krishna Kumar, along with Prem Lal Rajawade (Appellant No. 2) and Narendra Panika, were traveling on a motorcycle. The respondents, including Krishna Kumar’s widow, children, and parents, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,21,000. They stated that Prem Lal had come to Krishna Kumar’s pan shop and persuaded him to go to Village Belia. While returning, the motorcycle skidded, resulting in injuries to all three, and Krishna Kumar died en route to the hospital.

The appellants, the owner of the motorcycle (Appellant No. 1) and Prem Lal, contended that Krishna Kumar was driving the motorcycle rashly, causing the accident. They argued that Prem Lal was sitting in the middle, and Narendra Panika was at the back.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ruled in favor of the claimants, finding that Prem Lal was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently, leading to the accident. The Tribunal estimated the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 3,000 and applied a multiplier of 15, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 3,85,000 along with interest.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh reversed the Tribunal’s finding on who was driving the motorcycle. It concluded that the deceased, Krishna Kumar, was driving and was therefore liable for contributory negligence. The High Court reduced the compensation amount by 50%, awarding Rs. 3,86,500 with interest, while also enhancing the amounts for funeral expenses and loss of consortium.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the procedure for claiming compensation in motor accident cases. The respondents had filed the claim petition under this provision. The court also discusses Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with ‘no-fault liability’, applicable in cases where the accident occurs without any fault of the vehicle owner or another vehicle.

Arguments

The appellants argued that since the High Court concluded that Prem Lal was not driving, the claimants were only entitled to compensation under the ‘no-fault liability’ principle of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that no liability could be imposed on them for the negligence of the deceased. They also argued that there was no master-servant or employer-employee relationship between them and the deceased. The appellants also stated that they were from a humble background and would not be able to pay the compensation.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that Prem Lal was driving the motorcycle and was responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving. They presented witnesses who testified that Prem Lal had come to Krishna Kumar’s pan shop, persuaded him to go to Village Belia, and was driving the motorcycle when they left the shop and when they were returning.

The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had not filed a cross-appeal against the High Court’s reduction of compensation due to contributory negligence, nor did they file any cross-objection regarding the High Court reversing the finding of fact. However, the Court decided to examine the High Court’s approach as it was open to the respondents to support the decree while urging that the finding against them ought to have been in their favour.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the finding of the Tribunal that Prem Lal (Appellant No. 2) was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident.
2. Whether the claimants were only entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as a case of ‘no-fault liability’.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Court held that the High Court had committed a manifest error in reversing the Tribunal’s finding of fact. The Tribunal’s finding was based on a preponderance of probabilities, supported by witness testimonies. The High Court selectively relied on interested witnesses and did not consider the totality of evidence.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not discarded the version of the claimants’ witnesses as untruthful, nor had it found any contradictions in their version. The Court stated that the High Court had committed a manifest error in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal by solely relying on the version of interested witnesses examined by the appellants in defence.

The Court stated that once the finding of the High Court is found to be doubtful, the principal argument of the appellants must fail, and the question of applying Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not arise.

The Court quoted from the Tribunal’s judgment:

“Examining the witnesses Gayagtri (AW-1), Rajkumar (AW-2), Sanjay Pratap Singh (AW-3), Bhagwat Prasad (AW-4), Jawahar Lal (AW-5), Sandeep Kuma (AW-6) and the documents exhibited it was found that on 14.11.2006 near the Khad Naala near village Kailashpur motorcycle no.CG 16C/5171 met with an accident, and the riders of the motorcycle Premlal, Narendra Panika, and Krishna Kumar were injured. Krishna Kumar was seriously injured and therefore, he died while being taken to Charcha hospital.”

The Court also quoted:

“From the statement of applicant no.1 Smt. Gayatri Devi and the Criminal Complaint no.39/08 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, prima facie case against Premlal Rajwade under section 279, 304A of IPC has been registered on the basis of the witnesses and documents and the matter is pending before the court. These facts have stood the test of cross-examination.”

The Court further quoted:

“Therefore, on the basis of the above evidence it is decided that on question no.1 and 2 the applicants have been able to successfully prove against the defendants. On the other had the defendants have not been able to prove their case on question no.2. Therefore, the question no.1 is adjudicated as Yes and question no.2 is adjudicated as No.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle of preponderance of probabilities and the need to ensure justice in motor accident cases. The Court emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted in such cases and that the role of parens patriae must be discharged. The Court was particularly swayed by the consistent testimonies of the claimants’ witnesses, which were not successfully challenged during cross-examination. The Court was also critical of the High Court’s selective reliance on the statements of interested witnesses and the MLC report, which was based on the unilateral version of the appellants.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of evaluating the totality of evidence in motor accident cases, rather than relying on selective pieces of information.
• The principle of preponderance of probabilities is crucial in determining liability in such cases.
• The Court reiterated that the role of the court is to act as parens patriae in motor accident claim cases, ensuring justice for the victims and their families.
• The Court highlighted that statements given by interested parties, especially immediately after an accident, should be carefully scrutinized.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that the findings of the Tribunal should not be reversed lightly, especially when based on a reasonable evaluation of evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in motor accident claims, the courts must consider the totality of evidence and apply the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the findings of the Tribunal should not be reversed lightly, especially when based on a reasonable evaluation of evidence. This case also clarifies that the principle of ‘no-fault liability’ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not applicable when the accident is caused by the negligence of the driver. The Court has reinforced the principle that the role of the court is to act as parens patriae in motor accident claim cases, ensuring justice for the victims and their families. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal’s finding that Prem Lal (Appellant No. 2) was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident and was responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving. The Court reversed the High Court’s finding on contributory negligence, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive evaluation of evidence and the application of the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The Court held that the claimants were not limited to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the accident was due to negligence.