1. Motor accident claim — Death of cyclist — Dispute over negligence of truck driver — Appeal against dismissal of claim by Tribunal and High Court. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 628
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.)
HAJI ZAINULLAH KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS.
Versus
NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, ALLAHABAD
Civil Appeal No. 4682 of 1994{From the Judgment and Order dated 28-3-1985 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No. 43 of 1975}, decided on July 13, 1994
Advocates appeared
Anis Shuhrawardy and C.P. Pandey, Advocates, for the Appellants;
Pramod Swarup, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that the testimony of an independent witness should be preferred over interested witnesses. It further ruled that swerving a vehicle to the right on a narrow road to avoid an obstacle, thereby colliding with oncoming traffic, constitutes rash and negligent driving.
Subject
Tort Law - Negligence
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 - Motor Accident - Appreciation of evidence - Claim of compensation - Deceased student of B.Sc. was coming back from college on a bicycle at about 5/6 p.m. in the evening - He was hit by truck No. UPZ owned by died result of accident - Claim application for compensation was filed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Tribunal dismissed the application. Appeal filed against order of Tribunal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court appeal, by mother, sisters and brothers of the deceased, is against the judgment of the High Court – Held, Court of view High Court fell into patent error in holding that there was no negligence on part of driver of vehicle – Court rely on the testimony of Abdul Khalique - Even reading evidence of the two defence witnesses in between lines it is clear the way accident took place, driver of the truck was primarily to be blamed - Deceased was about 20 years of age - His grandfather was alive on the date of the accident and, as such was longevity in family - He was a B.Sc. 1st year student with bright future - Claimants asked for a meagre sum of money amounted as compensation - It is very much on the lower side but keeping in view the time lapse and also fact courts below have not gone into the quantum of compensation – Court are not inclined to increase the same – Appeal is allow
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
ANIS SUHRAVARDY, C.P.Pandey, PRAMOD SVARUP
ANIS SUHRAVARDY, C.P.Pandey, PRAMOD SVARUP
Table of Contents
2. Claimants alleged rash and negligent driving by the truck driver; the respondent contended the accident occurred due to the deceased's own speed and negligence. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The courts below erred by preferring interested witnesses over an independent witness and misanalyzed the accident scenario regarding swerving on a narrow road. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Swerving a vehicle to the right on a narrow, crowded road to avoid an obstacle, thereby entering the path of oncoming traffic, constitutes rash and negligent driving. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — Claim for compensation granted — Interest and costs awarded — Joint and several liability imposed on the owner and its successor. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. How should courts evaluate the testimony of an independent witness versus interested witnesses in motor accident claims?
Courts should not reject the testimony of a disinterested, independent witness solely for lack of corroboration while preferring the evidence of interested witnesses, such as employees of the respondent. (Para 8 )
7. Does swerving to the right to avoid an obstacle on a narrow road constitute negligence?
Yes, swerving to the right on a narrow and crowded road to overtake an obstacle, which brings the vehicle head-on into oncoming traffic, is considered rash and negligent driving. (Para 9 , 11 )
8. Can a map prepared by a non-witness under the instructions of a witness be relied upon by the court?
Yes, if the witness who provided the instructions for the map's preparation testifies, the court may rely on the map even if the person who physically drew it was not examined. (Para 10 )
Judgment
KULDIP SINGH, J.- Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. Abdul Rehman, deceased, a student of B.Sc. Ist year Biology, was coming back from the college on a bicycle on 9-9-1971 at about 5/6 p.m. in the evening. He was hit by truck No. UPZ-4272 owned by Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. Abdul Rehman died, as a result of the accident, on the spot. Claim application for compensation was filed on 1-3-1972 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) at Allahabad. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 28-3-1985. This appeal, by the mother, sisters and brothers of the deceased, is against the judgment of the High Court.
4. It is not disputed that the truck involved in the accident belonged to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The claimants examined Abdul Khalique as the only witness relating to the accident before the Tribunal. On behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika, Brij Lal, the driver of the vehicle and Suresh Chand Srivastava, Assistant Engineer, who was an employee of the Nagar Mahapalika, were examined. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the truck was not being driven rashly and negligently and, as such, dismissed the claim application. The High Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal.
5. Ordinarily, this Court is loath to interfere with the findings of the two courts below based on appreciation of evidence, but in the facts of this case we are of the view that the Tribunal examined the evidence in a perverse manner and drew the conclusions which, on the face of it are erroneous. The High Court became totally oblivious to the patent perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. We have, therefore, ventured to re-examine the evidence ourselves.
6. The Tribunal noticed the statement of Abdul Khalique on behalf of the claimants in the following words :
"Abdul Khalique says that his house was situate on Narullah Road, at a distance of 60 or 70 feet from the place of accident. His further statement was to the effect that he was taking tea in front of a hotel, at a distance of 15 to 20 feet when the accident took place. He described the accident in this way :
He says that the truck was proceeding from North to South whereas the boy who was the victim was coming from the South to North on a cycle. It was said that the truck was being plied on the main road. He says that the speed of the truck was very fast. About the speed of the cycle, he stated, that it was not fast. He further says that in front of the truck, a rickshaw was going. When the truck driver swerved the vehicle to save the rickshaw, he did not blow even horn. In the meantime, the boy on a cycle came, and dashed with the truck. He further says that the portion of the vehicle was in impact with the cycle. The boy fell down on the ground. Further examined, he says, that the truck driver did not switch off the engine and did not stop; the vehicle, on being chased, and surrounded, the truck driver stopped the vehicle at a distance of 80 to 90 feet from the place of accident."
The High Court referred to the evidence of Abdul Khalique in the following words :
"According to this witness when the accident occurred he was taking tea in a hotel on the said road which was about 15 to 20 feet from the actual place of occurrence. According to this witness the aforesaid truck was going from the station to the Karela Bagh and the deceased was coming on cycle from the opposite direction. The truck, according to him, was going with high speed and when the driver wanted to proceed after avoiding a rickshaw on the road the boy on the cycle collided with the said vehicle in the front on the right side of the vehicle. The boy died instantaneously on the spot."
7. Brij Lal (DW 1) was the truck driver. He deposed that the truck was being driven at the speed of 7 to 8 miles per hour. He came to know of the accident onl
