Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Ram Chandar Sahai Saxena

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2022FAFO/564/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the State of UP's appeal challenging a compensation award of Rs. 1,77,320 for a motor accident death. The court held that the Tribunal's findings on negligence and the driver's conduct were not to be disturbed and dismissed the appeal as not meriting success.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the fixed deposit amount is to be released by the Tribunal.

State of U.P. Vs Ram Chandar Sahai Saxena — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 564 of 1992

¶3

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Ram Chandar Sahai Saxena Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Neeraj Agarwal,Ramakant Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

None appears for the respondents.

¶6

By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and award dated 10.2.1992 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 425 of 1985 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,77,320/- with interest at the rate of 15% as compensation.

¶7

The brief facts are that one Bhagwat Sahai Saxena met accident with a truck no. UTG 5257 belonging to the Irrigation Department of the appellant while he was coming from the Gate of Meerut University on the road on 21.11.1985 at 2:30 p.m. and was bewildered and lost the balance of scooter and collided with the heap of bricks and fell upon it. The driver of the truck, who was going on the main road, picked up the deceased and took him to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was admitted and, thereafter, on 25.11.1985 he died in the said hospital.

¶8

The State of Uttar Pradesh has felt aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded to a Lecturer, who died in the accident. The claim petition was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The accident occurred in the year 1985.

¶9

The appellant has challenged the impugned award of compensation on the following grounds;

¶10

(i) the evidence on record it is established that the accident had not occurred due to collision of the scooter which was driven by the deceased and the truck no. UTG 5259 belonging to the appellant. The accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver.

¶11

(ii) the injury report of the deceased do not support the version of the accident and the court below has committed an error in drawing the adverse inference against the appellant.

¶12

(iii) the injuries were received by the deceased on the left side of his body and it supports the defendants’ case that the injuries were received due to his fall on the heap of bricks on the side of the road and not due to the accident with the truck. The deceased had survived for 4 – 5 days after the accident and it clearly establishes that the accident had not occurred with the truck.

¶13

(iv) the driver of the truck had taken the deceased to the hospital and got him admitted and went to the police station to lodge the report where he was arrested. This action of the driver shows his bonafide and establishes the defendant’s version.

¶14

(v) the deceased was about 58 years of age and the amount compensation on each count is very excessive.

¶15

(vi) the deceased himself was negligent and lost balance while coming out from the Gate of University and he had fall on the heap of the bricks due to his own negligence.

¶16

(vii) the court below has not considered the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and has recorded finding about the rash and negligent driving of the truck and the accident against the evidence on record.

¶17

¶18

(viii) the Court below has committed an error in ignoring the statements given by the defendants’ witnesses. PW2 – A.P. Garg was a chance witness and his statement could not be relied.

¶19

(ix) PW-1 has stated in his statement that the defence used to spent Rs. 250/- per month towards his personal comforts and the court below has committed an illegality in enhancing the amount of Rs. 500/- on this count.

¶20

It is contended by Sri Santosh Kumar Singh appearing for the State that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and in the alternative, it is pleaded if it is held that it was involved in the accident, the negligence was of the deceased, who survived about 4 – 5 days. The involvement of the vehicle cannot be doubted as the F.I.R. and chargesheet is against the government vehicle. The driver of the truck lodged a First Information Report. It is submitted that the deceased lost his balance and that is how the accident occurred.

¶21

As far as issue of contributory negligence is concerned as alleged by the appellant, I will have to consider the principles for deciding the negligence. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one. It is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to

¶22

¶23

exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed.

¶24

It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently.

¶25

10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to slow down vehicle as he approaches intersection of roads, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the car over which deceased was riding, was approaching intersection.

¶26

¶27

In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where drivers of motor vehicles who have caused accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be entitled to recover damages if principle of social justice should have any meaning at all.

¶28

These provisions (sec.110A and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles. In every way it was new. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies.

¶29

In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that even if courts may not by interpretation displace the principles of law which are considered to be well settled and, therefore, court cannot dispense with proof of negligence altogether in all cases of motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to develop the law further on the following lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident and, therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule

¶30

¶31

of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits (per threeJudge Bench in Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 ACJ (SC) 1840).

¶32

By the above process, the burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle was being driven with reasonable care or that there is equal negligence on the part of driver of another vehicle.”

¶33

Having considered the judgment of the Tribunal and the principles enunciated for deciding the issue of negligence, the findings of fact goes to show that the driver of the truck took the deceased to the hospital and, thereafter, he went to the police. This itself negates the submission of the Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Further as far as issue of negligence is concerned, while going through the record, it is clear that findings of fact by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed. The driver of scooter was driving the scooter on its correct side and, therefore, also the findings of fact cannot be upturned.

¶34

As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future loss of income.

¶35

This appeal sans merit and is dismissed. The amount kept in Fixed Deposit would be released by the Tribunal as more than 20 years have lapsed from the date of filing of this appeal.

¶36

This order be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶37

Order Date :- 23.2.2022 Irshad

¶38

State of U.P. v. Ram Chandar Sahai Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Ram Chandar Sahai Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt. Gangotri Devi and Another

Smt. Shitla Devi and Others Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

E.S.I.C. Vs Sikandra

Shuripal andOTHER Vs Ramanush Tiwari and Others

Smt. Prema Devi and Others Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Varanasi Vs Kumari Devi and Others