- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay v. Govind V. Pethe .
Factual and Procedural Background
A fatal accident occurred on 10th May 1971 at the intersection of Lady Jamshedji Road and Dr. Ambedkar Road involving a scooter ridden by Govind Pethe with his wife as pillion rider and a double-decker bus (No. MRT 1967). The bus struck the scooter after Pethe had almost crossed the road, resulting in the death of Mrs. Pethe and injuries to Govind Pethe. Pethe filed two claims before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay, which awarded Rs. 30,000 as compensation for the death and Rs. 18,255 for injuries. The bus undertaking appealed against these awards, leading to the consolidated appeals now decided by this court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Claims Tribunal was correct in holding the bus driver fully negligent and not attributing any contributory negligence to Govind Pethe.
- Whether the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Mrs. Pethe and injuries to Govind Pethe was reasonable.
- Whether the Claims Tribunal showed any prejudice against the bus driver or the undertaking in its judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Bus Undertaking)
- The Claims Tribunal was prejudiced against the bus driver, as evident from the language used in the judgment, including expressions like “to kill the pillion rider” and “no regard for human life.”
- The bus driver could not have averted the accident due to road conditions, specifically a ditch on the left side preventing swerving in that direction.
Respondent's Arguments (Govind Pethe)
- Govind Pethe signaled when approaching the intersection and was already on the central reservation track when the bus hit him.
- He could not turn left due to the raised portion of the central reservation track.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the factual matrix and found no evidence supporting the bus driver's claim of a ditch preventing a left swerve; the panchanama did not mention such a ditch and no corroborative evidence was produced. Applying the doctrine of "last clear chance," the court noted that contributory negligence no longer acts as a complete bar to recovery but is considered in apportioning damages. Here, the applicant had nearly crossed the road and was unable to avoid the accident due to the central reservation track. The bus driver, having the scooter in full view on a wide and straight road, had the last opportunity to avoid the collision by slowing down or swerving left. The court agreed with the Claims Tribunal that the driver was entirely negligent and no contributory negligence could be attributed to the applicant. Regarding compensation, the sums awarded for death and injury were deemed reasonable given Mrs. Pethe’s employment and the nature of injuries sustained by Govind Pethe.
Holding and Implications
The appeals are dismissed.
The court upheld the Claims Tribunal's findings of full negligence on the part of the bus driver and affirmed the compensation awarded to Govind Pethe for the death of his wife and his own injuries. The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs and pay those of the respondent. This decision directly affects the parties by confirming liability and compensation but does not establish a new legal precedent.
1. A tragic accident took place at the inter-section of Lady Jamshedji Road and Dr. Ambedkar Road at 5.30 p.m on 10th May 1971. Scooterist Pethe, a lecturer in a College at Baroda with his wife on the pillion seat was coming from Parsi Colony, wanted to cross Ambedkar Road and proceed towards Hindu Colony. Ambedkar Road is a wide bisected road with each side having a width of 20 metres and the central reservation track is 4.5 metres wide.
2. A.B.E.S.T double decker No. MRT 1967 was proceeding from King's Circle towards south. Pethe had traversed practically 2/3rd of the road when the front portion of the bus hit him. The bus driver tried to swerve his vehicle on the right and applied the brakes. The bus skidded a distance of 6 metres and came to a halt. Mrs. Pethe was killed and her husband the applicant Govind suffered injuries resulting in disability.
3. Govind Pethe filed two applications before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay, which awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation arising out of the death of his wife and Rs. 18,255/- as damages for the injuries resulting to the applicant against which the present appeals have been filed. These appeals have been consolidated and this judgment will govern and dispose of the appeals.
4. Mr. Pankaj Patel on behalf of the Undertaking has attacked the award on the ground that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal was prejudiced against the driver which is apparent from the use of the expressions “to kill the pillion rider”, and “no regard for human life” used in the judgment under appeal. Simply because the learned Member has used superlatives and hyperboles, it would not be correct to surmise that he was in any manner prejudiced against the undertaking. According to Govind Pethe, he had given a signal when he came to the intersection of the two roads and the bus driver dashed against his scooter when the scooter had reached the central reservation track. Govind Pethe explains that he could not turn towards his left because of the raised portion of the central reservation track.
5. On the other hand, Jamiluddin, the driver of the bus, explains that the road was dug up on both sides and hence there was space for only two vehicles at a time instead of the usual four lanes of the road. He was following one lorry which was ahead of him and when he was about five feet away from the southern portion of the intersection, the applicant and his wife suddenly crossed from his left. To avert the collision be applied brakes and swerved the bus to the right and he could not have swerved to any other direction because there was a ditch to his left.
6. This theory of a ditch on the road to the left which prevented Jamiluddin from taking a left turn from swerving his vehicle to the left and thereby averting the accident has been put in the box for the first time. A suggestion has been made by Jamiluddin that he had narrated the same to his officers immediately after the accident but no such evidence has been led. The panchanama of the scene of occurrence also does not make any reference to any freshly dug up ditch near the reservation track.
7. In matters of collision between motor vehicles, the common law rule which treated contributory negligence as a complete defence — as not only reducing the plaintiff's recovery but defeating it entirely — had to be modified by the ‘last opportunity’ or the “last clear chance” doctrine. It permitted full recovery to a plaintiff notwithstanding his own negligence if the defendant had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident but negligently failed to avail himself of it. Blending the rule of last clear chance with that of the apportionment of damages for contributory negligence, the approach now is to have regard to all the causes and apportion the damages accordingly, rather than select from a number of causes which was the effective and predominant one and to reject the rest.
8. In the instant case, it appears that the applicant cannot be held negligent in any manner because he had already traversed practically the entire width of the road and could not even avert the accident as the abutting portion of the central reservation track prevented him from doing so. On the other hand, considering the width and straightness of the Ambedkar Road, it is clear that the bus driver had the scooter in full view when he was proceeding from north to south and could have easily averted the accident by slowing down the bus or turning it towards the left lane. In these premises, I find that the learned Member of the Tribunal was right in holding the driver as completely negligent and not apportioning any I damages by way of contributory negligence.
9. Coming to the question of the quantum, it appears that the learned Member has awarded reasonable sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of the death of Mrs. Pethe who was gainfully employed and was also working as an insurance agent. The quantum of Rs. 18,255/- which is an aggregate of special and general damages is also reasonable.
10. In the result, both these appeals fail and the same are dismissed. The Appellants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Respondent.
Appeals dismissed.
Alert