S.B.SINHA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Sudhir Kumar Rana – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT (S.B. SINHA, J)
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant was driving a two-wheeler bearing registration No. DL-45 AQ 0731 on 30.10.2003. He was aged about 17 = years. He met with an accident, as allegedly respondent No.1 was driving a mini-truck rashly and negligently. He suffered the following injuries in the said accident:
"1. Crush injury over right root.
2. Fracture fifth M.T. bone and joint.
3. Fracture P.P. little toe. (Total 3 fractures)
4. Abrasions over left side trunk, right-foot, right-leg, right-hand and left-knee
5. Profusely Bleeding.
6. Abrasions and blunt injuries all over body."
3. Appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The Tribunal opined that as the appellant did not possess a driving licence, he must be held to have contributed to the accident. Although a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded by way of compensation, in view of the finding that he was guilty of contributory negligence on his part, found to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- only. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal preferred by him under Section 173 of the Act.
4. The question which arises for
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. The list primarily references the original case law of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh (2008) 12 SCC 436 and its consistent citation in subsequent judgments, suggesting its ongoing legal relevance rather than invalidation or disapproval.
Numerous cases cite the decision of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh (2008) 12 SCC 436 as a foundational or supporting authority, indicating that the case continues to be considered good law and is followed in subsequent judgments. For example:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amit Kumar, Beg Raj. and Sh. Jagbir Singh - 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 1421, Jagdish Prasad Agarwalla VS Upendra Singh - 2011 0 Supreme(Gau) 625, SOHAN SINGH VS MANOJ - 2011 0 Supreme(MP) 1390, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD VS SHARDA DEVI - 2011 0 Supreme(All) 2980, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Md. Abdul Karim - 2011 0 Supreme(Gau) 891, Nand Ram VS Shekh Ali - 2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 1340, Mohd Israj VS Dharambir - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 3267, United India Insurance Company Limited Jodhpur VS Santosh Devi - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1080, United India Insurance Co Ltd. , Jodhpur VS Santosh Devi - Current Civil Cases (2013), KALIRAM SAHU VS CHAMANLAL DEWANOAN - 2013 0 Supreme(Chh) 291, D. Narayanasamy VS District Collector, Tiruvarur - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 525, M. Madhavi VS Ch. Ananthaiah - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 422, Gopal Kanwar VS Shravan - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 189, Panchi Devi Gurjar VS Tilak Raj Pandit - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 951, Minor M. Balaji and others rep. by his father M. Murugesan VS S. Venkatachalam - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 3996, Minor M. Balaji VS S. Venkatachalam - 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 4136, Rajni VS Union of India - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 809, Mohammed Noufal T S/o. Fathima T VS Saheed S/o. Mohammedkutty - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1305, Dinesh Kumar. J. @ Dinesh J VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1190, K. Yellappa S/o Kakappa VS N. Manju S/o Narayana Reddy - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 335, Up State Road Transport Corporation VS Bala And Others - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3395, MIRA DEVI VS MOHD KHALIL (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ) - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2700, Laba Kanta Mili VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 564, New India Assurance Co. Ltd VS Sangeeta Gogoi - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 627, Bhup Singh VS Mainpal - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 882, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Shaila Janardhan Zendekar - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2496, Shanti Lal VS Ramesh Chandra - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 3004, M. C. Sathy, W/o. Late Dinesan VS K. Venugopalan, 23/119 Kausthubham - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 313, Venkatachalapathi VS United India Insurance Co Ltd. - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1148, Miraben Govindbhai Gavit VS Rambachchan Shreeramkant Gond - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1841, Rekha, W/o. Late N. Subramanya VS Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 229, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Sangita Ramji Bhoyar - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 1964, Srikrishna Kanta Singh VS Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - 2025 3 Supreme 578, AJMER SINGH vs SMT. GIRJA DEVI AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2302, Marappan vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21541, Minnoli vs P.Rajkamal - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21794, THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. SHIDALING HUKKERI - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33135, RAJU K.K. vs SAROJ NAIR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34416, The Divisional Manager vs S. Rajamani - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63801, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Avinash - 1987 0 Supreme(Raj) 731
The repeated references to the case in multiple judgments suggest it remains authoritative and is treated as binding or persuasive precedent.
No explicit language indicates that the case has been distinguished or explicitly overruled. The consistent reliance on it as a supporting authority suggests it is still considered valid.
Cases such as Ganga Devi W/o Late Shri Shiv Lahri VS National Insurance Company Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1466 and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (Kptcl), Vs Rekha, W/o Late. N.subramanya - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7266 mention the case in the context of discussing principles or legal points, but do not specify whether the case's authority has been questioned or upheld, leaving their treatment somewhat ambiguous.
The case THANE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MR. HRISHIKESH SUDHAKAR THAKARE - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 24511 discusses the legal principle from the case but does not specify whether it is followed or criticized in subsequent decisions.
Some descriptions, such as Shanti Lal VS Ramesh Chandra - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 3004, mention reliance on the case but do not clarify whether this reliance is in the context of affirming its validity or merely citing it without endorsement.
Overall, the treatment appears to be that of continued validity and relevance, with no clear indication of disapproval or overruling.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.