http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: N. K. V. BROS (P) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. KARUMAI AMMAL AND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/03/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1354            1980 SCR  (3) 101  1980 SCC  (3) 457  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1991 SC1769  (6)

ACT:      Motor Vehicles Act-Driver of bus acquitted for rash and negligent driving- Civil suit if must also be dismissed.      Indian Penal  Code-Section 304A-Requirement of culpable rashness more  drastic than  negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner’s  bus driven  by a  driver hit an over- hanging high  tension wire  resulting in  the death  of some passengers and  loss of  limb to  several others. The driver was acquitted  on the  ground that the tragedy was an act of God. The Accidents Tribunal held that despite the screams of the passenger  about the  dangerous over-hanging  wire ahead the rash  driver sped towards the spot which resulted in the accident.  The  High  Court  affirmed  the  finding  of  the Tribunal that  the accident  had taken place due to rashness and negligence of the driver and consequently the petitioner was vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant.      Dismissing the petition, ^      HELD: 1.  The plea  that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that therefore the civil suit must follow suit was rightly  rejected by  the Tribunal  and the  High Court. [102 E]      2. The  requirement of  culpable rashness under section 304A I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. [102 E]      The Accident  Tribunal must  take special  care to  see that innocent  victims do  not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity  there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred  from  the  circumstances  where  it  is  fairly reasonable. The  court should  not succumb  to niceties  and technicalities. [102 G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Nos. 937-939 of 1980.      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  1-8-1979  of  the Madras High Court in A.A.O. Nos. 815-817 of 1977.      T. A. Ramachandran and K. Ramkumar for the Petitioner.      The Order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER, J.-Sri Ramachandran, ably assisted by Sri K. Ram  Kumar, presented  the case  of  the  petitioner  for special leave, as persuasively as the facts permit but while we were impressed with the 102 industry and  advocacy of  counsel, we heartily dismiss this petition. Why  heartily? Because  the High Court, if at all, has erred in favour of the petitioner, not against him.      The Facts: A stage carriage belonging to the petitioner was on  a trip  when, after  nightfall, the bus hit an over- hanging high  tension wire  resulting in  26  casualties  of which 8 proved instantaneously fatal. A criminal case ensued but the  accused-driver was  acquitted on the score that the tragedy that  happened was  an act  of  God!  The  Accidents Claims Tribunal,  which tried  the claims  for  compensation under the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  came  to  the  conclusion, affirmed by the High Court, that, despite the screams of the passengers about  the dangerous over-hanging wire ahead, the rash driver  sped towards  the lethal  spot. Some lost their lives instantly; several lost their limbs likewise. The High Court, after examining the materials, concluded:           "We therefore  sustain the finding of the Tribunal      that the  accident had  taken place due to the rashness      and negligence  of R.W. 1 (driver) and consequently the      appellant is  vicariously liable to pay compensation to      the claimant." The plea  that the  criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore,  the  civil  suit  must  follow  suit,  was rejected and  rightly. The  requirement of culpable rashness under section  304A I.P.C.  is more  drastic than negligence sufficient under  the law  of tort  to create liability. The quantum of  compensation was  moderately fixed  and although there was,  perhaps a  case for  enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are  obviously   unwilling  to   re-open  the   holdings  on culpability and compensation.      Road accidents  are one  of  the  top  killers  in  our country,  specially  when  truck  and  bus  drivers  operate nocturnally. This  proverbial recklessness  often  persuades the courts,  as has  been observed  by us  earlier in  other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the  doctrine of  res ipsa  loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take  special care  to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of  some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain  cases,   culpability  must   be  inferred   from  the circumstances where  it  is  fairly  reasonable.  The  court should not  succumb to  niceties, technicalities  and mystic maybes. We  are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by  transport  operators  getting  away  with  it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic 103 impact of  culpable driving  of public  transport must bring owner  and   driver  to   their  responsibility   to   their ’neighbour’. Indeed,  the State  must seriously consider no- fault liability  by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is  the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by  tribunals.  We  must  remember  that  judicial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

tribunals  are   State  organs   and  Article   41  of   the Constitution lays  the jurisprudential  foundation for state relief against  accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification  for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which  is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of  accident   cases  resulting  in  compensation,  even  if awarded, being  postponed by  several years. The States must appoint sufficient  number of  tribunals and the High Courts should insist  upon quick  disposals so  that the trauma and tragedy already  sustained  may  not  be  magnified  by  the injustice of  delayed  justice.  Many  States  are  unjustly indifferent in this regard.      We have  been  taken  through  a  few  intricate  legal submissions by  counsel but  we decline   to interfere under Article 136  of  the  Constitution  especially  where  human misery is pitted against operational negligence. P.B.R.                                   Petition dismissed. 104