Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • M.R Sharma, J.
Acts
  • Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • section 304-A Indian Penal Code.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • M.R Sharma, J.
Acts
  • Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • section 304-A Indian Penal Code.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — F.A.Os 46, 47, 56 & 57 of 1969

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 May 1966 at about 2 P.M., Parminder Singh (A.W.3) was riding a scooter (No. PNF:3351) with Manohar Singh as pillion, traveling from a house on Gaushala Road (inside Amritsari Gate of Ferozepore City) toward the Mall in Ferozepore Cantonment. As the scooter emerged from Amritsari Gate and turned left, it was struck by an oil tanker (No. PNF7401) coming from the Kasuri Gate side toward Bansi Gate. The tanker was alleged to have been rashly driven by its driver Baldev Raj.

The impact pushed the scooter and its riders a considerable distance; both Parminder Singh and Manohar Singh fell into the adjacent Nala. Bystanders removed them to the Octroi Post; they were later transported by a local bus to the hospital, where Manohar Singh died. The tanker belonged to Mukatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society and was insured with the Jupiter General Insurance Company. The driver, Baldev Raj, left the scene after the accident.

Mrs. Bachittar Kaur (widow of Manohar Singh) and her minor daughter filed a claim application for compensation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. Parminder Singh filed a separate claim for his injuries. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the scooter driver negligent to the extent of 25% and awarded compensation: Rs. 22,950 to the widow and daughter (insurance liability fixed at Rs. 10,952.50) and Rs. 19,087 to Parminder Singh (insurance liability fixed at Rs. 9,047.50). These awards were the subject of multiple First Appeals (F.A.Os 46, 47 by Parminder Singh and Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and F.A.Os 56, 57 by the Transport Society).

Before this court, the Transport Society sought remand on the basis that a criminal court had acquitted the driver and that they had therefore not led full evidence earlier; the court instead allowed the Transport Society one opportunity to lead further evidence in the appellate proceedings. Two witnesses (Prakash Chand R.W.8 and Manohar Lal R.W.9) were examined for the Transport Society in this court; one witness (Ishar Dass) was given up.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether Parminder Singh can be held negligent merely because he did not possess a regular driving licence.
  2. Whether the tanker (and its driver Baldev Raj) was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hence liable for the deaths/injuries caused.
  3. The appropriate apportionment of negligence between the parties (specifically whether the Tribunal was correct in attributing 25% negligence to Parminder Singh).
  4. Appropriate quantum of compensation to be awarded to (a) the widow and child of the deceased Manohar Singh and (b) Parminder Singh for his injuries and assessed permanent disability.

Arguments of the Parties

Transport Society's Arguments (as presented by Mr. L.M. Suri)

  • Parminder Singh (A.W.3) was himself negligent because he did not hold a driving licence and was allegedly driving at a very fast speed.
  • Reference to A.W.3's statement that he had covered only 5–6 feet after emerging from Amritsari Gate before the accident, arguing that he should have applied brakes as soon as he saw the tanker and therefore ought to bear responsibility for the collision.
  • On earlier trial, the Transport Society's counsel relied on an acquittal of the driver in the criminal court to justify not leading full civil evidence initially, and sought remand; the court denied remand but allowed additional evidence to be led in the present appeal.

Claimants' / Respondents' Position (as reflected in the record and Tribunal findings)

  • The tanker was being driven at a considerable speed and without sounding its horn; eyewitness evidence indicated speeds of about 50–55 miles per hour and corroborated that the tanker struck the scooter, pushed riders into the Nala, and demolished the parapet wall of the culvert.
  • The learned Tribunal found the scooter driver negligent to the extent of 25% and awarded compensation to the widow and daughter under Section 110-B and to Parminder Singh for injury; this decision was defended by the claimants against the Transport Society's pleas for remand and absolution.
  • The respondent version (that the tanker was moving only 10–15 miles per hour and that the scooter struck it) was asserted at trial but the appellate record indicates the court found this version implausible in light of skid marks, damage to the parapet wall, and eyewitness testimony.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. The State of Maharashtra There is no legal presumption that possession of only a learner's licence or lack of a licence establishes lack of driving proficiency; absence of a regular licence alone does not prove negligence. The court applied this principle to hold that Parminder Singh could not be deemed negligent merely because he lacked a regular driving licence; eyewitness evidence that he had driven the scooter for years undermined imputing negligence on that ground alone.
The Co-operative General Insurance Society v. Surjit Singh (F.A.O No. 252 of 1971, decided 10 Aug 1972) Used for guidance in assessing lump sum awards and the method of calculating a capital sum that would yield a particular monthly income via bank deposit rates (reference to a Bank of India scheme yielding specific monthly interest on a capital deposit). The court relied on the approach taken in that case to determine a lump sum (Rs. 24,000) which, if deposited under the cited scheme, would yield Rs. 150 per month to the widow and child — thus fixing the appropriate lump sum award for maintenance.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in connected steps, applying precedent, assessing documentary and oral evidence, and recalculating appropriate compensation:

  1. Licence and Negligence: The court considered whether absence of a regular driving licence by Parminder Singh could, by itself, support a finding of negligence. Relying on Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. The State of Maharashtra, the court held that no presumption arises from absence of a licence that the person lacks driving skill; evidence that Parminder had been seen driving for about three years meant negligence could not be foisted solely because he lacked a licence.
  2. Physical and Eyewitness Evidence on Causation and Fault: The court examined the site plan (Exhibit A.W.7/19), which showed about 10 feet of skid marks from the point of impact and that the tanker struck and dismantled the parapet wall some 20 feet beyond the skid marks. The presence of skid marks and the parapet damage indicated the tanker was being driven at considerable speed and that its driver lost control.
  3. Corroboration of Eyewitness Accounts: Eyewitness Kewal Krishan (A.W.2) testified the tanker was coming at about 50–55 miles an hour without sounding a horn, pushed the riders into the Ganda Nala, broke the parapet, and had its front wheels suspended in the Nala. Parminder Singh's account and circumstantial physical evidence corroborated this. The court found the respondents' contrary claim (that the tanker was going only 10–15 miles per hour and that the scooter struck the tanker) implausible, reasoning that a scooter striking a tanker would likely bounce back and would not have caused the parapet wall damage attributed to the tanker in several witness statements.
  4. Specific Findings on Driver Fault: The court concluded that the tanker driver Baldev Raj (R.W.6) could not control the vehicle and thus was driving rashly and negligently. The narrowness of the circular road (10–11 feet) combined with the typical width of a tanker (about 8 feet) reinforced the expectation of extra caution by the tanker driver, who also had a duty to ensure safety of vehicles approaching from the right.
  5. Apportionment of Negligence: The Tribunal had apportioned 25% negligence to Parminder Singh primarily on the ground that he should have stopped, looked, and let main-road traffic pass. The appellate court disagreed: given the evidence that the tanker was behind the scooter when it appeared on the main road, turning left as Parminder stated was reasonable and the 25% attribution was not proper.
  6. Quantum of Compensation — Widow & Child: The Tribunal's determination that Manohar Singh would have contributed Rs. 150 per month until age 65 was accepted; applying the deposit/yield approach discussed in The Co-operative General Insurance Society v. Surjit Singh, the court held that a capital sum of Rs. 24,000 would yield Rs. 150 per month under the referenced Bank of India scheme and therefore awarded Rs. 24,000 to Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter.
  7. Quantum of Compensation — Parminder Singh: The Tribunal assessed Parminder's permanent disability at 30% but fixed his pre-accident income as only Rs. 150 per month (on the basis he was a student). The court considered this figure too low, observed that a peon's salary was about Rs. 170 per month at the time, and fixed a fairer notional income for Parminder at Rs. 320 per month. On that basis, it calculated the loss of income (about Rs. 120 per month) and held that a cash award of Rs. 20,000 would yield a monthly income of approximately Rs. 125. The court therefore enhanced Parminder Singh's compensation to Rs. 20,000.
  8. Liability for Enhanced Awards: The court directed that the enhanced compensation amounts awarded in these appeals would be payable by the Transport Society.

Holding and Implications

Holdings:

  • F.A.O. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1969 succeed to the extent that compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced as follows: Rs. 24,000 awarded to Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter; Rs. 20,000 awarded to Parminder Singh.
  • F.A.O. Nos. 56 and 57 of 1969 are dismissed (these were the appeals by the Mukatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society challenging liability).

Direct consequences: The Transport Society is ordered to pay the enhanced compensation amounts awarded. Because the enhancements were not large, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs in these appeals.

The opinion does not announce any new binding precedent; it applied existing case law (as cited) and explained factual reasons for re-allocating fault and enhancing quantum in the specific appeals before the court.

Show full summary ...

    Parminder Singh v. Mukatsar Janta Co-Operative Transport Society Ltd. And Another

    1. F.A.Os 46, 47, 56 and 57 of 1969 arise out of the same accident and are being disposed of by one judgment. On May 9, 1966, at about 2 P.M Parminder Singh A.W 3 was going on scooter No. PNF: 3351, with Manohar Singh riding the pillion, from the house of one Gurdarshan Singh situated on Gaushala road inside Amritsari Gate of Ferozepore City to his own house, which was situated on the Mall, Ferozepore Cantonment. As soon as the scooter emerged from the Amritsari Gate and the driver took a turn towards the left side, it was hit by an oil tanker No. PNF7401 coming from the side of the Kasuri Gate and going towards the Bansi Gate side. It is alleged that the tanker lorry was being rashly driven by its driver Mr. Baldev Raj. Because of the impact, the scooter along with its two riders was pushed ahead for a considerable distance. Parminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased fell into the Nala. Because of the impact made by the tanker, the parapet wall of the culvert on the side of the Nala was also demolished. Some of the by-standers took Paraminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased out of the Nala and brought them to the Octroi Post. After about 15 minutes, a local bus happened to pass by. Manohar Singh and Paraminder Singh were carried in this bus to the hospital where Manohar Singh breathed his last. Baldev Raj, the driver of the tanker, disappeared from the place of the occurrence after the accident. The tanker belonged to the Mukatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society (hereinafter called the Transport Society) and it was insured with the Jupiter General Insurance Company. Mrs. Bachittar Kaur, widow of Manohar Singh and her minor daughter Bibi Arvinder Kaur filed a claim application, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death by accident of Manohar Singh. Parminder Singh, who was injured in the same accident filed a separate claim application. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the scooter driver was negligent to an extent of 25 per cent and that Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter were entitled to have a-sum of Rs. 22,950/- as compensation under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. Out of this amount, the liability of the Insurance Company was fixed at Rs. 10,952.50 along with costs. Parminder Singh applicant was granted a sum of Rs. 19,087/- as compensation. Out of this amount, the Insurance Company was ordered to pay Rs. 9047.50 plus the costs of the application. F.A.O No. 46 of 1969 has been filed by Parminder Singh and F.A.O No. 47 of 1969 has been filed by Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter. In these appeals enhanced compensation has been claimed. F.A.Os Nos. 56 and 57 of 1969 have been filed by Mukatsar Janta Co-operative Transport Society in which it has challenged the award of compensation.

    2. These appeals came up before me on September, 25, 1972, Mr. L.M Suri the learned counsel for the Transport Society, submitted before me that during the trial of these claim application, a learned Single Bench of the Court had taken the view that a decision rendered by the Criminal Court was binding on the Tribunal. Since Baldev Raj, the driver of the tanker, had been acquitted he bona fide formed an opinion that it was not necessary for him to lead some evidence. He prayed that the case may be remanded. This prayer was opposed on behalf of Parminder Singh and Mrs. Bachittar Kaur on the ground that the other side was prolonging the proceedings on one pretext or the other. Instead of remanding the case, I ordered that the Transport Society should be given one more opportunity to lead evidence in this court. The Transport Society has examined two witnesses: They are Prakash Chand R.W 8 and Manohar Lal R.W 9. The learned counsel for the applicants in F.A.Os Nos. 56 and 57 of 1969 gave up Ishar Dass witness and closed his evidence.

    3. Mr. L.M Suri, the learned counsel for the Transport Society, has taken me through the evidence and has argued that Parminder Singh A.W 3 was himself negligent inasmuch as he did not hold a driving licence and was driving the scooter at a very fast speed. In particular, he has drawn my attention to the statement made by A.W 3 Parminder Singh in which he had stated that he had covered only 5/6 feet after emerging from the Amritsari Gate when the accident took place. According to the learned counsel, it was the duty of Parminder Singh to apply brakes as soon as he saw the tanker coming. Since he failed to do so and the scooter banged into the tanker, the Transport Society could not be held liable for any compensation.

    4. The first question which falls for determination is whether Paminder Singh can be regarded to have driven the scooter in a negligent manner merely because he did not possess a driving licence. He was a college-going student at the material time and it is in the evidence of Mr. Kewal Krishan A.W 2 that he had been seeing Parminder Singh driving the scooter for the last three years or so. In the face of this statement, it cannot be said that Parminder Singh A.W 3 was not well versed in driving a scooter. In Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. The State of Maharashtra,1 the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a similar question. In that case a jeep driver was held guilty on an offence under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. He was holding a learner's licence and drove the jeep without any person having a driving licence by his side. He knocked down a pedestrian who succumbed to his injuries. The driver was convicted by the courts below by observing that the very fact that the accused had a learner's licence showed that he had not attained proficiency in driving and therefore, could not control the vehicle. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the driver with these observations:

    “There is no presumption in law that a person who possesses only a learner's licence or possesses no licence at all does not know driving. For various reasons, not excluding sheer indifference, he might not have taken a regular licence. The prosectuon evidence that appellant No. 1 had driven the jeep to various places on the day previous to the occurrence is a proof of the fact that he knew driving. There was no basis for the conclusion that it was sheer stroke of good fortune that he did not meet with any accident on that day.”

    5. These observations apply with full force to the facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, it cannot be held that because of the absence of a regular driving licence alone negligence could be foisted on the shoulders of Parminder Singh A.W 3.

    6. Before adverting to the evidence led by the parties, I would like to discuss the site plan Exhibit A.W 7/19 which was prepared by the investigating officer and produced in the criminal trial. A perusal of this plan shows that there were skid marks for a distance of about 10 feet from the place of the impact. At a distance of about 20 feet from the skid marks the tanker struck against the parapet wall of the Nala and dismantled it. Parminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased were thrown into the Nala at this place. The presence of skid marks for a distance of about 10 feet shows that the tanker was being driven at a considerable speed. After the impact, the tanker dragged Parminder Singh and Manohar Singh deceased for a distance of about 20 feet. The dismantled parapet wall lies on the right side of the tanker. This shows that Baldev Raj R.W 6, the driver of the truck, could not control the vehicle. Kewal Krishan A.W 2, who is an eyewitness, has stated that the tanker was coming at a speed of 50/55 miles an hour without blowing a horn. It struck against the scooter, pushed its riders towards the Ganda Nala, in which they fell, the tanker demolished the parapet wall of the Ganda Nala and its front wheels got suspended in it. The statement made by this witness is fully corroborated by Parminder Singh A.W 3 and the circumstantial evidence already discussed. The burden of the evidence produced by the respondent is that the tanker was coming at a speed of about 10/15 miles an hour and it was the scootor which struck against it. This part of the respondent's version does not appear to be plausible because if the scootor had struck against the tanker, in all probability it would have bounced back. The respondent's witness examined before the learened Tribunal have also stated that the parapet wall was broken because of the impact made by the scootor. To this extent, they are belied by the statements made by Parkash Chand R.W 8 and Manohar Lal R.W 9 in this behalf. Parkash Chand R.W 8 has stated that the parapet wall of the culvert on the Nala was also broken with the impact of the tanker. Manohar Lal R.W 9 has also made a similar statement. In the face of this evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that the tanker was being driven by Baldev Raj R.W 6 in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Tribunal inspected the spot and recorded an inspection note which shows that this ring or circular road, on which the tanker was plying, was 10 to 11 feet wide. It is a matter of common knowledge that the width of the tanker-truck is about 8 feet. When a driver brings a tanker on a road of this dimension, he is expected to be doubly cautious. Besides, it is the duty of the driver to ensure the safety of the vehicles approaching the road from another road on his right side. Mr. Suri cannot derive any help from the statement made by Parminder Singh A.W 3 to the effect that he saw the tanker when he had covered only 5/6 feet after emering from the Amritsari Gate. The site plan shows that the gate was at distance of about 20 feet from the centre of the Circular Road. Parminder Singh has stated that he blew horn when he turned towards his left. In this situation the tanker must have been coming from behind at a great speed when it struck against the scooter.

    7. The learned Tribunal held Parminder Singh negligent to the extent of 25 per cent mainly on the ground that it was his duty to have stopped, looked and let pass the vehicles which were going on the main road. As already indicated, when Parminder Singh appeared on the main road the tanker was probably behind him. Under these circumstances, it was open to him to turn the scooter on the left side as stated by him. In my considered opinion, it was not proper on the part of the learned Tribunal to hold that Parminder Singh was negligent to the extent of 25 per cent.

    8. Coming now to the question of quantum of compensation, it may be stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that Manohar Singh was expected to contribute a sum of Rs. 150/- per month up to the age of 65 years towards the maintenance of his wife and daughter. In some cases, however, it has been held by this Court that the life expectancy of a healthy male should be taken as 70 years. In The Co-operative General Insurance Society v. Surjit Singh, F.A.O No. 252 of 1971 Decided on August 10, 1972, I considered the question of awarding lumpsum compensation to the heirs of the deceased victim of an accident. I took into consideration a scheme floated by the Bank of India which is a scheduled Bank. Under this scheme, if a person deposits Rs. 10,000/- with the Bank for any period more than a period of 37 months, the Bank promises to pay monthly interest at the rate of Rs. 62.50 from the date of the deposit. A sum of Rs. 24,000/- if deposited with this Bank would yield an income of Rs. 150/- per month to Mrs. Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter for life. Besides, the capital amount will also belong to them. In the circumstances of the instant case, it would be fit and proper to award a sum of Rs. 24,000/- to Mrs Bachittar Kaur and her minor daughter, I order accordingly. In the case of Parminder Singh, the learned Tribunal on the basis of medical opinion has come to the conclusion that he has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 30 percent. He has, however, fixed his income at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month on the ground that he was a student of Arts. This figure in my opinion is quite meager. It is a matter of common knowledge that even a peon draws a monthly salary of about Rs. 170/- per month in these days. Under these circumstances, it would be fair and proper to fix his income at Rs. 320/- per month. On this basis, loss of his income comes to about Rs. 120/- per month. If a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to him in cash as compensation, it would be possible for Parminder Singh to earn monthly interest at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. This appears to be a reasonable figure and I enhance the compensation payable to Parminder Singh to Rs. 20,000/-. The enhanced compensation awarded in these appeals will be payable by the Tranport Society.

    9. In result, F.A.O Nos. 46 and 47 of 1969 succeed to the extent indicated above and F.A.O Nos. 56 and 57 of 1969 are dismissed. Since the compensation payable to Parminder Singh and Mrs Bachittar Kaur has not been enhanced by a considerable amount, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in these appeals.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Parminder Singh v. Mukatsar Janta Co-Operative Transport Society Ltd. And Another
    (Nov 9, 1972)