Manam Saraswathi Sampoorna Kalavathi vs Manager APSRTC, Tadepalligudem A. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 266

2010 (2) Supreme 636
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Manam Saraswathi Sampoorna Kalavathi & Ors. — Appellants
versus
The Manager APSRTC, Tadepalligudem A.P. & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2325 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1439/2009)
Decided on : 26-03-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mrs. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, Adv., for the Appellants.
For the Respondents:G.N. Reddy, Adv., for the Respondents.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act,1988-Death of deceased in a motor vehicular accident- Deceased was driving scooter on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously, when driver of APSRTC bus drove in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit the scooter from behind, as a result of which deceased who was driving scooter died on the spot and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries- Tribunal held that deceased died because of rash and negligent act of driver of APSRTC bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs –Appeal- High Court held in the impugned judgment that possibility of deceased, while driving scooter at a high speed, falling down and sustaining head injury could not be ruled out and awarded a compensation of Rs 75,000- Appeal- Finding of High Court was totally contrary to the record of case- PW-2 had categorically stated in his evidence that deceased was driving slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and the driver of bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn-High Court was totally unjustified in weaving out a new case which was not borne out from the evidence on record- High Court erroneously observed that the possibility of appellants influencing the police and getting an FIR registered with time and date of their choice could not be ruled out and possibility of PW-2 not being with the deceased at the time of accident and his implicating a bus belonging to appellant as having caused accident also could not be ruled out-If High Court was clearly of the view that deceased did not die because of the serious injuries sustained on account of rash and negligent act of the driver, then no compensation ought to have been awarded-Held findings of High Court were totally contradictory and unsustainable- In the facts and circumstances of case, impugned judgment of High Court set aside and judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, restored-Appeal allowed. (Paras 14 to 25)
       Facts of the Case :
       Deceased died in a motor vehicular accident herein in the instant case. Deceased was driving scooter on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously, when driver of APSRTC bus drove in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and hit the scooter from behind, as a result of which deceased who was driving scooter died on the spot and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Tribunal held that deceased died because of rash and negligent act of driver of APSRTC bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. On Appeal High Court held that possibility of deceased, while driving scooter at a high speed, falling down and sustaining head injury could not be ruled out.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       Held Finding of High Court was totally contrary to the record of case. PW-2 had categorically stated in his evidence that deceased was driving slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and the driver of bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn. High Court was totally unjustified in weaving out a new case which was not borne out from the evidence on record. High Court erroneously observed that the possibility of appellants influencing the police and getting an FIR registered with time and date of their choice could not be ruled out and possibility of PW-2 not being with the deceased at the time of accident and his implicating a bus belonging to appellant as having caused accident also could not be ruled out. If High Court was clearly of the view that deceased did not die because of the serious injuries sustained on account of rash and negligent act of the driver, then no compensation ought to have been awarded. Held findings of High Court were totally contradictory and unsustainable. In the facts and circumstances of case, impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and judgment passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was restored. Appeal was allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. —

1.Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2.The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

The deceased was an engineering graduate working as a Branch Manager in Fancy Traders Company at Bangalore. He had gone to Velpucharla from Bangalore on the eve of Sankranti festival. On 11.1.1993 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased, namely, Manam Yasovardhana, along with one Tummala Nageswara Rao had gone to Gannavaram Village on the scooter bearing No. AP-16-D-699. In the evening, they were returning to Velpucharla and when they reached the District Electrical Stores, Vatluru, N.H.5 road at about 6.30 p.m. while the deceased was driving the scooter on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-Z-1247 drove in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and while proceeding towards Eluru hit the scooter from behind, as a result of which the deceased who was driving the scooter died on the spot and the pillion rider Tummala Nageswara Rao fell down and sustained injuries. The accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver – Respondent No.2, P. Chittirama Raju of the APRRTC bus bearing No.AP-Z- 1247.

3.The mother, father and sisters of the deceased filed a joint claim petition, being Original Petition No.451/1993 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Godavari District, Erulu, A.P. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver - 1st Respondent (respondent no.2 herein) and dashed against the scooter bearing No. AP-16-D-699 being driven by the deceased.

(ii) Whether the petitioners (appellants herein) are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

4.While dealing with Issue No.(i), the Tribunal stated that it is the specific evidence of PW-2, pillion rider of the scooter driven by the deceased Yasovardhana that on 11.1.1993 while returning to Eluru when they reached the District Electrical Stores, Vatluru, at about 6.30 p.m., the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-Z-1247 which was being driven by P. Chittirama Raju, respondent No.2 herein, dashed the scooter from behind and the deceased and the scooter fell down, resulting into the death of the deceased on the spot.

5.It may be pertinent to mention herein that PW-2 clearly stated that the deceased was driving the scooter slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and the bus driver was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and while proceeding towards Eluru, dashed the scooter from behind.

6.The incident took place on 11.1.1993 at 6.30 p.m. and the first information report was lodged at 8.00 p.m. on the same day. The post-mortem certificate revealed that the deceased died because of the multiple injuries and the injury on the vital part of the brain led to multiple fracture of vault and base of skull and due to haemorrhage and shock.

7.The Tribunal accepted the testimony of PW-2 – pillion rider and clearly found that the deceased died because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the APSRTC bus.

8.Regarding issue No. (ii) which is about the claim of compensation, the appellants had claimed a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs on the ground that the age of the deceased was 24 years on the date of accident and was getting Rs.5,000 per month. The Tribunal, relying on the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, Pondicherry, stated that the deceased got Rs.60,000/- towards salary and commission during the financial year 1991-92 and Rs.50,000/- from 1.4.1992 to 31.1.1993. The accident took place on 11.1.1993. This certificate shows that the total salary and commission for the ten months i.e. from 1.4.1992 to 31.1.1993 was Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the gross earnings of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 266

Cases Referred (1)