Surinder Kaur and Others Vs Dr. Mohan Dev Saini and Others

This app e al is directed against the awar d dated 06.11.1997 passed by the learned Motor A ccident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, whereby the claim petition filed under Se c tion 166 of the Motor Vehicl e s Act, 1988 was disposed of by granting comp e nsation of ₹50,000/- only under the principle of no-fault liabili t y, holding that ne g ligence on the part of the driv e r of the offending vehicle had n ot been establish e d.

¶15

Pleadings: The admitted factual p osition is that on 20.12.1993 at about 6.30 PM, Amarjit Singh (since deceased) was travelling in Maruti Car be a r- ing registratio n No. DL1C-7370 from Bunga t o Hoshiarpur. The car was being driven by resp o ndent No.1 Dr. Mohan Dev an d was owned by his wife, resp o n- dent No.3. On the way, near village BhikOwa l on the Dasuya-Hoshiarpur ro a d, the vehicle struck against a Safeda tree. Amarj i t Singh sustained multiple injur i es and, despite pr o longed treatment at Civil Hos p ital, Hoshiarpur and thereafter at CMC Ludhiana, succumbed on 08.03.1994. The widow and two minor children filed the prese n t petition alleging that the ac c ident was the result of rash and

¶16

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page N: 1 of 9 Pag e s

¶18

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶19

negligent drivi n g of respondent No.1 and als o on account of failure of bra k es and loss of con t rol.

¶20

3.1 Re s pondent No.1–driver contested the claim by asserting that the petitioners we r e estopped from maintaining t h e claim, as the widow had earlier submitted an application stating that the accident occurred due to mechani c al defect in the v e hicle. He pleaded that while driving the car at a slow speed n e ar village BhikOw a l, the steering wheel suddenl y jammed and, upon applying the brakes, he fou n d that they had failed, resulti n g in the vehicle striking agains t a tree. He maint a ined that the accident was cau s ed solely due to sudden mech a n- ical failure and not due to any rash or neglig e nt driving on his part. He furt h er stated that he h imself sustained multiple inju r ies, became unconscious, and r e- mained admitt e d in CMC Ludhiana for eight d ays. It was also pleaded that the deceased, bein g his employee, used to travel with him in the car, and that the present claim w as false and frivolous.

¶21

3.2 Re s pondent No.3 i.e. owner of th e car took the same stand.

¶22

3.3 Re s pondent No.2 i.e. insurance company in its separate written statement alleged that driver did not hav e any valid driving licence and therefore, insu r ance company had no liability t o pay the compensation amount.

¶23

Amendment application : It has c o me on record during the cou r se of evidence th a t the correct registration nu m ber of the offending vehicle w as DL1C-7370 and not DL1C-7390 as mentioned i n the claim petition. An applicati o n bearing CM-11982-CII of 2016 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has also been moved before this Court seeking correction of the regi s tration number.

¶24

H o wever, since there is no dispute whatsoever regarding the id e n- tity or involve m ent of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1C-7370, which w as admittedly bei n g driven by respondent No.1, o wned by respondent No.3 and insured with res p ondent No.2 at the relevant ti m e, this Court does not find it n e c- essary to form a lly allow the amendment. The m atter shall, therefore, be considered and deci d ed on the basis that the offe n ding vehicle was Maruti Car N o.

¶25

YOGESH MEHTA DL1C-7370. 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

Page N: 2 of 9 Pag e s

¶27

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶28

Tribunal Findings : The Tribunal, after appreciating the eviden c e, discarded the t e stimony of AW2 and AW4, wh o were projected as eyewitness e s, and came to th e conclusion that rash and negli g ent driving had not been prov e d. At the same ti m e, it noticed that the accident occurred due to brake failure and confined the a w ard to compensation under Se c tion 140 of the Act under no fa u lt liability.

¶29

7.1 Contentions of appellants – claimants : Assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants–claimants contends that the Tribu n al has erred in di s carding the testimony of AW2 D alvinder Singh and AW4 Balw a nt Singh, who we r e examined as eyewitnesses t o the occurrence. It is argued t h at both witnesses had categorically deposed that the offending Maruti car was b e- ing driven in a r ash and negligent manner and that their evidence was suffici e nt to establish ne g ligence on the part of respondent No.1. According to the appellants, the Trib u nal misdirected itself in reject i ng their testimony on untena b le grounds.

¶30

7.2 In t he alternative, learned couns e l submits that even if the version of direct rash & negligent driving were to b e doubted, the Tribunal failed to - properly appre c iate the legal effect of the sta n d taken by respondent No.1 hi m self. It is point e d out that respondent No.1 c o nsistently pleaded that the accident occurred d ue to brake failure and jammi n g of the steering wheel. The s a id plea, it is argued, is fortified by the Mechanical Inspection Report (Mark R1) and the testimony o f respondent No.1 as RW1. In such circumstances, the Tribu n al ought to have d rawn an adverse inference ag a inst the driver and owner for f a ilure to maintai n the vehicle in roadworthy con d ition. It is contended that pro p er maintenance o f the vehicle was within the e x clusive knowledge and control of the responden t s, and in the absence of any s e rvice record or independent evidence of regul a r upkeep, the maxim res ipsa loquitur ought to have been a p- plied. The mer e oral assertion of RW1 that th e vehicle was being properly maintained, it is arg u ed, was insufficient to discharge the burden cast upon him.

¶31

7.3 In support of the aforesaid sub m issions, reliance has been placed YOGESH MEHTA upon Gurdeep Kaur v. Tarsem Singh, 2009 ACJ 314 , wherein it was held by t h is 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 9 Pag e s

¶32

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶33

court that whe r e the mechanical report reveals defective brakes, a presumption of negligence m ay arise. Further reliance has b een placed on Godaabarish Satpathy v. Brundaban Mishra, 1984 ACJ 59 , wh e re the principle of res ipsa loquitur was applie d in a case of brake failure, and it was held that such defect may justify an infer e nce of negligence.

¶34

Response by respondent – Insurer : Per contra, learned counsel f or the insurance c ompany submits that in a petition under Section 166 of the M o- tor Vehicles Ac t , proof of rashness and neglige n ce is a sine qua non for maintaining the claim. Placing reliance upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla, 2007(13) SCC 476, it is argued that lia b ility under Section 166 cannot be fastened in th e absence of cogent proof of n e gligence. It is further contended that the Tribu n al rightly disbelieved testimon y of AW2 and AW4, as they w e re not reliable ey e witnesses to the occurrence. O nce their testimony is discard e d, there remains no independent evidence to e s tablish rash or negligent drivi n g. According to l d . counsel, the plea of mechani c al defect does not automatic a lly translate into n egligence, and in the absence of positive proof of rashness, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the award t o compensation under the principle of no-fault liability.

¶35

Consideration by this Court : Having considered the submissions of both the sides a nd re-appraisal of the record, t his Court finds no infirmity in the Tribunal’s app r eciation of the so-called eye w itnesses. AW2 admitted that he reached the s p ot nearly an hour after the a c cident. He could not, therefo r e, have witnesse d the occurrence. AW4 gave a v ague version without identifying the vehicle nu m ber, the driver, or other ma t erial particulars. Their testimony does not inspir e confidence so as to independently establish rash and neglig e nt driving.

¶36

H o wever, the matter does not re s t there.It is not disputed that the vehicle in ques t ion was under the exclusive co n trol of respondent No.1. It is a l so not disputed t h at the accident occurred when the car struck against a tree. The defence consis t ently taken by respondent No.1, both in his written statem e nt YOGESH MEHTA and in his dep o sition as RW1, is that when h e attempted to apply the brak e s, 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 4 of 9 Pag e s

¶37

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶38

they failed and simultaneously the steering w h eel jammed, as a result of which the car went out of control and struck the tr e e. He further relied upon a m e- chanical inspec t ion report (Mark R1), dated 0 2 .02.1994, which records leakage of brake vessels, absence of brake seals, crac k ed brake oil pipe, non-functio n al wheel cylinder a nd locked steering.

¶39

Plea of brake failure & the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: The cr u cial question is whether the m ere plea of brake failure absol v es the driver of negligence in a claim under Section 166 of the Act.

¶40

It is settled that in a petition und e r Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, neglig e nce must be established. How e ver, the standard of proof is t h at of prepondera n ce of probabilities and not be y ond reasonable doubt. Proce e d- ings before th e Claims Tribunal are summary in nature; strict technical rules of evidence are n o t to be applied with rigidity. T he Tribunal is required to ass e ss the material o n record in a pragmatic manner consistent with the object of the statute.

¶41

Th e doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself”, is a rule of evidence, which operates in cases, where the accident is o f a kind that ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence and the instrumentality c a using harm was under the exclusive control of the driver. In such situations, an e v identiary presumption arises, s hifting the burden onto the dri v er or owner to furnish a satisfactory explanatio n . Hon’ble Supreme Court has r e- peatedly clarifi e d that the maxim is not to be invoked mechanicallyand that its applicability de p ends upon the factual matrix o f each case.

¶42

In motor accident claims, where a vehicle under the exclusive c o n- trol of the driver meets with an accident whi c h, in the ordinary course, wo u ld not occur with o ut negligence, the burden lies upon the driver to rebut the p r e- sumption by es t ablishing that the occurrence w as the result of a sudden and u n- avoidable caus e despite exercise of due care. A mere plea of mechanical failu r e, unsupported b y cogent evidence of proper m a intenance and sudden latent d e- fect, is insuffici e nt to discharge that burden.

¶43

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

Page N: 5 of 9 Pag e s

¶45

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶46

In o ther words, brake failure, by i t self, is not negligence per se, b ut at the same ti m e, it is not an automatic defence. Mechanical failure may, i n a given case, con s titute an inevitable accident, b u t the burden of establishing such inevitability lie s squarely upon the driver and o wner. It must be shown that the vehicle was pr o perly maintained, that regular servicing was undertaken, t h at there was no p r ior indication of defect, and that the defect was sudden and n ot discoverable b y exercise of reasonable care.

¶47

In the present case, respondent N o.1 has merely asserted that he used to maintain the car properly. No mainte n ance record has been produc e d. No service stat i on official or mechanic has be e n examined. There is no evide n ce indicating whe n the vehicle was last serviced or whether it had been certified roadworthy. T h e car was a 1986 model as p e r the policy Ex.R3 and was t h us about seven ye a rs old at the time of accident. A vehicle of such vintage demands greater vigilance in upkeep.

¶48

Th e mechanical report relied up o n by the respondents was p r e- pared nearly o n e and a half months after the a ccident and has not been proved by examining i t s author. More importantly, the report does not clarify whet h er the alleged def e cts were sudden or the result of gradual wear and tear. Defe c ts such as leakage of brake vessels, absence of br a ke seal, cracked oil pipe and n o n- functional wheel cylinder ordinarily develop o ver time and, in the absence of evidence of re g ular maintenance, may legiti m ately indicate want of due c a re rather than ine v itability.

¶49

Th e plea of brake failure, uns u pported by cogent evidence of proper mainte n ance and sudden latent defect, is therefore insufficient to re b ut the presumpti o n arising from the circumstanc e s of the accident. Proper main t e- nance of brake s and steering mechanism is a continuing duty of the driver and owner, and failure of such essential systems , without proof of due diligen c e, cannot be trea t ed as a neutral event. The pre s umption arising under the principle of res ipsa l o quitur remains unrebutted.

¶50

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

Page N: 6 of 9 Pag e s

¶52

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶53

Consequently, this Court holds t h at respondent No.1 has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the a c cident was the result of a sudden and unavoidab l e mechanical defect despite e x ercise of due care. The accid e nt must therefore be held to have occurred due t o rash and negligent driving in a s- much as the ve h icle was not kept in a roadwor t hy condition.

¶54

Th e finding of the Tribunal restri c ting compensation to no-fault liability is, there f ore, set aside.

¶55

Quantum: As regards quantum, t h e evidence of AW1, Senior Cl e rk from PSEB, es t ablishes that the deceased w as drawing a monthly salary of ₹3,286/- and was 37 years of age at the time o f accident. His annual income a c- cordingly come s to ₹39,432/-.

¶56

In view of the law laid down by t he Constitution Bench of the S u- preme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, addition towards f u- ture prospects is mandatory, where the dec e ased was in permanent empl o y- ment and belo w 40 years of age. The Court held that in such cases 50% of the established inc o me is required to be added to w ards future prospects. Since the deceased was a permanent employee and 3 7 years of age, addition of 50% is justified, there b y taking the annual income to ₹ 59,148/-.

¶57

Th e deduction towards personal a nd living expenses is required to be made in accordance with the structured guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , wherein it w a s held that where the number of dependents is t hree, one-third of the income should be deducted towards p e r- sonal expenses of the deceased. After such d e duction, the annual contributi o n to the family w o rks out to ₹39,432/-.

¶58

Fu r ther, as per the multiplier tabl e approved in Sarla Verma (supra) and affirmed i n Pranay Sethi (supra), the a p propriate multiplier for the age group of 36–40 years is 15. Applying the multi p lier of 15, the loss of depende n cy is calculated at ₹5,91,480/-.

¶59

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

Page N: 7 of 9 Pag e s

¶61

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶62

As regards consortium, the Supr e me Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram clarified that consortium is not limited to spou s al consortium alo n e but includes parental and filial consortium as well. Though the accident in the present case occurred in 1993, having regard to the conventio n al amounts prevailing at the relevant time and in order to maintain parity w i th awards grante d in similar cases of that perio d , a sum of ₹15,000/- each to the three claimant s , totalling ₹45,000/-, is conside r ed just and reasonable.

¶63

A f urther amount of ₹10,000/- ( ₹ 5,000/- each) is awarded un d er the conventional heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate, consistent w i th the principles i n dicated in Pranay Sethi (supra) , subject to adjustment keeping in view the time o f accident.

¶64

In addition, the evidence on rec o rd clearly establishes that Am a r- jeet Singh rem a ined under treatment at CMC Ludhiana from 20.12.1993 till h is demise on 08. 0 3.1994. The medical expendit u re incurred during this period is supported by d ocumentary evidence in the f o rm of Bill Ex. AW3/1, which h as been duly proved by AW3 Belan, Senior Acco u nts Clerk of the Medical Colle g e, reflecting an a m ount of ₹1,19,543.48.

¶65

Al t hough AW5 Smt. Surinder Kaur has deposed that a larger amo u nt was spent on the treatment of the deceased, no additional documentary pr o of has been prod u ced in support of that asserti o n. In the absence of further c o r- roborative evidence, this Court deems it appropriate to award a rounded sum of ₹1,25,000/- to w ards medical expenses incurr e d prior to the death of Amarj e et Singh, which a p pears to be just and reasonabl e in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶66

Ac c ordingly, the total compens a tion works out to ₹7,71,48 0 /- [5,91,480 + 45, 0 00 + 10,000 + 1,25,000].

¶67

Af t er deducting ₹50,000/- alread y awarded by the Tribunal un d er no-fault liabilit y , the enhanced compensation p ayable comes to ₹7,21,480/-.

¶68

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

Page N: 8 of 9 Pag e s

¶70

FAO No.821 of 1998

¶71

1. Conclusion : Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The clai m ants are held e ntitled to an enhanced compe n sation of ₹7,21,480/- along w i th interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of f i ling of the claim petition till re a lization. The amount shall be payable jointly and severally by the respondents, and shall be sh a red equally amongst the three c laimants.

¶72

Misc. applications if any stands disposed of.

¶73

(DEEPAK GUPTA)
16.02.2026 JUDGE
Jiten
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶74

Uploaded on : February 16, 2026

¶75

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.16 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

Page N: 9 of 9 Pag e s

Surinder Kaur and Others v. Dr. Mohan Dev Saini and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kaur and Others v. Dr. Mohan Dev Saini and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Samunder Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jai Chand (Since Deceased) through His Lrs and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Niranjan Dass and Anr. Vs Ram Rattan and Anr.

Gurdeep Singh Vs Sukhdev Singh @ Prince

Iqbal Singh Sawhney Vs Gurbachan Singh etc.