Rajo Devi vs Manjeet Kaur

2025 INSC 741 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). ____________OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 993-994 of 2024)

RAJO DEVI & ANR. ETC. Appellant(s)……

VERSUS

MANJEET KAUR & ORS. Respondent(s)…….

JUDGMENT

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J:-

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common order

dated 27.02.2020 in FAO No. 1905 of 2014 (O&M) and 8197 of

2014 (O&M) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had

partially upheld the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal, (‘MACT’ for short) to the extent Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.05.20

of application of principle of contributory negligence.

18:16:02 IST Reason:

1

3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.07.2009, a

newly purchased motorcycle bearing chassis No. S107RP602050

(insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Limited (Respondent no. 5 herein) was being driven by the

deceased Gautam who happened to be a bachelor aged around 22

years (son of claimants, namely Rajo Devi (appellant no. 1 herein)

and Prem Chand (appellant no. 2 herein) and on which his

brother-in-law, deceased Harpal Singh (his dependants are

Harjinder Kaur, Babu Singh and Noordeep (appellant nos. 3, 4 &

5 herein respectively) aged about 30 years, was riding pillion.

While they were going on the main road in the area of Police

Station Kaithal, an Alto car bearing registration No. HR08-J-3157

(insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Limited

(Respondent no. 6 herein)) being driven by Gulzar Singh and in

which one Kulwinder Singh (since injured) was sitting next to the

car driver, came from the opposite side and a head-on collision

took place between the two vehicles, leading to death of both the

motorcyclists and injuries to Kulwinder Singh. The owner and

driver of alto car, namely, Gulzar Singh, died after sometime due

to some other reason and was represented by his LRs, namely

2 Manjeet Kaur, Virender Singh and Sarabjeet Singh (Respondents

no. 1, 2 & 3 herein respectively) before the Trial Court.

4. Accordingly, amongst other petitions, two petitions were filed

by the petitioners herein before the MACT, Kaithal. The Ld.

Tribunal vide its order dated 03.06.2011 opined that the accident

in question was a clear-cut case of contributory negligence and

accordingly, the dependants of deceased Gautam were held

entitled to Rs. 86,000/- which was 50% of total compensation of

Rs. 1,72,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of

deceased Gautam as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering

him as a casual labourer and applying the multiplier of 9.

Similarly, the dependants of deceased Harpal Singh were held

entitled to Rs. 2,23,000/- which was 50% of total compensation

of Rs. 4,23,000/- which was assessed by taking the income of

deceased Harpal as Rs. 3,000/- per month after considering the

minimum wages and applying the multiplier of 17.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of MACT an

appeal was preferred by the appellants herein claiming

enhancement of compensation amount and the issue of

contributory negligence be decided in favour of the appellants

herein. The High Court vide the impugned common order has

3 partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the amount of

compensation payable to the dependants of deceased Gautam

and Harpal Singh by assessing their monthly income as Rs.

4,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month and applying the multiplier

of 18 and 17 respectively, thereby arriving at total compensation

of Rs. 5,52,000/- in case of deceased Gautam and Rs. 6,91,200/-

in case of deceased Harpal Singh. The High Court has also

enhanced the interest from 7% p.a to 9% p.a. However, the High

Court has upheld the applicability of the principle of contributory

negligence.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order

passed by the High Court the appellants herein have preferred

the present appeals.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

impugned order is erroneous in not considering the testimony of

other eyewitness namely, Suresh Kumar (PW4) and relying upon

the testimony of Kulwinder Singh (PW 5) only. It was further

submitted that the principle of contributory negligence has been

wrongly applied by the High Court in ignorance of the testimony

of PW4 who had deposed that deceased Gautam was riding his

motorcycle at a normal speed on his left side when the Alto car

4 came from opposite side in a high speed and was very rashly and

negligently driven.

8. It was next submitted that the High Court erred in law by

differentiating in the income of deceased Gautam and pillion

rider Harpal. The income of the deceased Gautam has been

assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month whereas that of deceased

Harpal has been assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month despite the

fact that they both were in the same profession i.e. running a hair

cutting salon and were hair dressers. The differentiation in

assessment of income of both the deceased is irrational and

without any basis.

9. It was further submitted that the site plan of the accident

prepared by the investigating agency, which was not in the

knowledge of the petitioners herein was never brought on record

and that the same would show that the accident took place

because of the negligence of the driver of Alto car only.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.

5 submitted that deceased Gautam, who was the driver of the

motorcycle in question, was not holding a valid and effective

driving licence. It was submitted that the accident in question

had taken place due to the sole negligence and rashness of

5 Gulzar Singh, who was the driver of Alto car. It was further

submitted that as the motorcycle in question was not the

offending vehicle, respondent no. 5 is not liable to pay any

compensation.

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submitted

that the accident in question was a head-on collision and

accordingly, the driver of both the vehicles need to be held

responsible as they had contributed equally to the accident. With

regard to the quantum of compensation, it was submitted that

the same has been awarded at higher side by the High Court in

the impugned order. It was further submitted that the site plan

cannot be allowed to be produced at this stage before this court.

12. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of a respondent

nos. 1 to 3 herein who are the legal heirs of deceased Gulzar

Singh (driver of Alto car) and respondent no. 4 herein (owner of

the accidental motorcycle).

13. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides at length

and perused the relevant documents placed on record.

14. The High Court while upholding the application of principle

of contributory negligence and assessing the income of the

deceased persons has observed as under:

6

“The testimony of Kulwinder Singh is the most important one as no other eye-witness to this incident has been examined by any of the sides. Being an injured eye-witness, is certainly a stamp witness in the realm of evidence. In his cross- examination Kulwinder Singh as PWS has admitted the fact that the Alto car was being driven at a speed of 60 kilometres per hour and the accident has occurred in middle of the road and it was a head on collision. The contentions of the counsel representing the insurance company that it is a clear-cut case of contributory negligence could not be displaced by any of the counsel representing the other side. Learned counsel for the insurance company has placed on record 'Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta & others' 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 590, where in a similar proposition, the Supreme Court has held that where the vehicles had a head-on collision the drivers of both vehicles need to be responsible to have contributed equally to the accident. In the present case, in the light of the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court needs to hold it so and the findings drawn by the impugned award to that effect need to be upheld.

In case of claim by the parents of deceased Gautam, it is admitted that the deceased was a bachelor aged around 22 years. Though much fanfare has been sought to be raised over the factum that he was not holding a valid driving license, but the same has not been proved by the insurance company on whom the onus lay, and rather the driving license of driver of the Alto car Guljar Singh has been brought on record as Ex.Rl, registration certificate of the Alto car as Ex.R2 and the insurance police as Ex.R3. Learned counsel for the insurer of the Alto car fairly concedes that at the time of accident the car was under insurance cover. No avocation of deceased Gautam and Harpal Singh has been proved. It is also not in any manner displaced that they were running hair-cutting saloon and were hair-dressers. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the earnings of Gautam and Harpal to be of casual labourers. Keeping in view the age of Gautam and the fact that he happens to be young unmarried grown up son of aged parents, who were totally dependent and that Harpal Singh too was young aged around 30 years with a widow and two minor children as dependents and keeping in view that the factum of their avocation is not denied though there is no proof of their earnings, this Court taking into consideration the objective of the Act being of welfare nature, feels it expedient to hold that

7 by all likelihood Gautam must be earning~ 4,000/- per month and Harpal Singh ~ 5,000/- per month. The same is also commensurate with the family strength they were looking after in such days of escalating prices of essential commodities and cost of living. Accordingly, the annual income of deceased Gautam comes to ~48,000/- and that of deceased Harpal Singh~ 60,000/-.

As regards future prospects are concerned, the dependants of deceased Gautam shall be entitled to 50% of his annual earnings i.e. ~24,000/- and thus his total income after addition of future prospects comes to ~ 72,000/-. Keeping in view that Gautam was a bachelor and must be contributing 1/3rd on his own. upkeep and maintenance, and has only two aged parents as dependents therefore, deduction of 1/3rd on his personal expenses and maintenance is appropriate and as such his dependency comes to ~ 48,000/.,. (72000 x 2/3). In the light of age of the deceased and that of his parents, multiplier of 18 is applied whereby the compensation comes to ~ 8,64,000/- (48000 x 18). Since it is a proven case of contributory negligence and Gautam was driving the motorcycle and has equally contributed to this accident, therefore the claimants in his case shall be entitled to 50% of the compensation i.e. ~4,32,000/-. Taking the earnings of deceased Harpal Singh to be ~60,000/- per annum and adding 40% (i.e. ~24,000/-) towards his future prospects, his total earnings would come to ~84,000/-. Keeping in view that he has left behind widow and two minor sons and in view of the dependency he must be contributing 1/5th on his own upkeep and maintenance so his dependency comes to ~67,200 (84000 x 4/5). More so, with the passage of time, children would grow up and their requirements in life on account of education etc. would also increase and keeping in view the age of Harpal Singh deceased multiplier of 17 is appropriate. Therefore, the amount of compensation comes to ~11,42,400/- (67200 x 17). As it was a case of contributory negligence, his dependents shall be entitled to 50% of the compensation i.e. {5,71,200/-.

Besides this, in case of both the deceased an amount of {50,000/- each is awarded on account of loss of consortium, { 20,000/- each for expenses of funeral and last rites and a sum of~ 50,000/- each on account of loss of estate. Resultantly, the total amount of compensation in case of deceased Gautam comes to {5,52,000/- whereas in case of

8 deceased Harpal Singh the total compensation is { 6,91,200/-.”

15. The question posed by the appellants is with respect to the

applicability of principle of contributory negligence.

16. The MACT has held that the accident in question was a case

of contributory negligence relying solely upon the testimony of

Kulwinder Singh (PW5) who deposed that the accident took place

in the middle of the road. The said finding has been upheld by

the High Court in the impugned order. However, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the same deserves to be set aside as the

High Court has committed a serious error in not considering the

testimony of PW-4 Suresh Kumar who was also one of the eye-

witnesses apart from PW-5 Kulwinder Singh.

17. The site plan of the said accident which was prepared by the

investigating agency has been brought on record before this court

for the first time. It was submitted by the petitioners herein that

the same was not placed before the MACT as the charge-sheet

was never filed since the accused Gulzar had passed away before

the filing of the charge-sheet. The objection raised on behalf of

respondent no. 6 to the production of site plan at this stage is in

our view without merit. It must be kept in mind that the

9 provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependants in

accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial

provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of

procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in

such cases is summary in nature. Hence, the site plan is taken

on record by allowing the appellant to file additional document.

18. A careful perusal of the site plan shows that point ‘A’ is

shown as the place where the accident took place and where the

motorcycle was found lying. Point ‘A’ is on the left side of the road

going from North to South. Point 'B' in the site plan denotes the

place where Alto car was found lying. Point ‘B’ is on the extreme

right side of the same road. Point 'C' in the site plan marks the

place where dead body of the deceased persons were found lying

i.e. in the field of Ramchari S/o Ratiram. Point ‘C’ is on the

extreme left side of the same road. The distance of point 'B' from

point 'A' is about 62 feet, and of point 'C' about 18 feet.

19. Therefore, as per the site plan, deceased Gautam was riding

his motorcycle on his left side of the road when the Alto Car hit

him. The site plan also corroborates the testimony of eyewitness

PW4, complainant Suresh. Thus, in view of the above discussion,

this Court finds that the accident in question took place due to

10 rash and negligent driving of Gulzar Singh only, driver of Alto car

and there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased

Gautam.

20. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the view that

the High Court has erred in upholding the application of the

principle of contributory negligence and thereby deducting the

amount of compensation entitled to the deceased persons by

50%. Therefore, this court is inclined to enhance the amount of

compensation by amount which was deducted by the High Court

on account of contributory negligence. Thus, the total amount of

compensation to which deceased Gautam is entitled to is Rs.

9,84,000/- [Rs. 5,52,000 (compensation calculated by the High

Court) + Rs. 4,32,000/- (Compensation deducted by High Court

on account of contributory negligence)]. Furthermore, the total

amount of compensation to which deceased Harpal is entitled to

is Rs. 12,62,400/- [Rs. 6,91,200/- (compensation calculated by

the High Court) + Rs. 5,71,200/- (Compensation deducted by

High Court on account of contributory negligence)]. The said

compensation shall carry interest at 9% per annum as awarded

by the High Court.

11

21. In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed and

disposed of accordingly. The balance amounts to be deposited

with the MACT with interest within a period of six weeks from

today.

22. No order as to cost.

........................................J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

.........................................J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 19, 2025.

12