http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: BISHAN DEVI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SIRBAKSH SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1979

BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1862            1980 SCR  (1) 300  1980 SCC  (1) 273  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1991 SC1769  (6)

ACT:      Motor Vehicles  Act  1939,  S.  110A-Determination  and payment of  compensation-No immediate and adequate relief to dependents  under   the  existing  law-Amendment  suggested- Provision similar  as in rail and air accidents-Liability to pay minimum  compensation absolute-Dependents  not satisfied may pursue  remedies before  Claims Tribunal-Regular monthly payments  instead   of  lump   sum  payment-Advantageous  to dependants-Less burdensome on the insurer.

HEADNOTE:      The appellants  in their  claim  petition,  before  the Motor Accidents  Claims Tribunal,  claimed Rs.  50,000/-  as compensation  alleging   that  the   husband  of  the  first appellant was run over by a truck which was driven in a rash and negligent  manner. Appellants  2 to  5  were  the  minor children of the first appellant.      The claim  was contested  by the  owner of  the  truck, Respondent No.  1 and  the  insurer,  Respondent  No.  2.  A written plea  was filed  by the second respondent contending that the  truck had  been stolen  by somebody  while it  was standing, that  a report to the police had been made to this effect and  that the truck was driven without the consent of the owner  and consequently the respondents were not liable. It was  further pleaded  that the  replying  respondent  was absolved from  any possible liability in connection with the alleged accident  under the  provisions of Ss. 95 and 96 (2) of the  Motor Vehicles Act 1939. The first respondent in his written statement  filed about  a month  after that  of  the second respondent,  contended that  the truck  did not  meet with any  accident  nor  was  any  intimation  sent  to  the replying respondent.      The  Motor   Accident  Claims  Tribunal,  came  to  the conclusion  from   the  pleadings   and  evidence  that  the claimants had failed to establish the identity of the driver and the  claimants not  even being  aware of the name of the driver who  had driven  the offending  truck, had  failed to prove their case and rejected the claim.      The appeal  of the  claimants to  the  High  Court  was rejected, the  High Court  agreeing with  the finding of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Claims Tribunal  and further  holding  that  the  truck  was stolen by some irresponsible person who did not know driving and by  reckless driving  caused the  accident and therefore the owner of the truck cannot be held responsible.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: 1.  According  to  the  insurer  by  his  written statement  which  was  filed  a  month  before  the  written statement of  the owner  it was  pleaded that somebody stole the truck  without the knowledge of the owner or the driver. The plea  of the  owner in  his written statement filed more than a  month there-after,  was that  the truck did not meet with any  accident. While  the owner  did not complain about any theft  of the  vehicle, the  insurer  professed  further knowledge that the vehicle was driven by somebody who had no driving licence 301 and without  the authorisation  of the owner. Apart from not examining himself  the insurer  did not  make any attempt to substantiate his  plea that  the driver  who was driving the vehicle did  not have the driving licence. The plea taken by both the  owner and  insurer  is  palpably  false  and  made without any  sense of  responsibility with a view to somehow escape liability.  It is  most unbecoming  of  an  insurance company to  have acted  in this  callous  and  irresponsible manner.                                        [305 F-H, 306B, 307G]      2. There  is no finding by the Claims Tribunal that the truck was  driven by  an unauthorised person. The High Court found that the truck ought to have been stolen and driven by some  irresponsible   person  who   did  not  know  driving. According to  AW 4  the truck was driven by RW 2. In fact in the F.I.R.,  AW 4 stated that it was RW 2 who was diving the truck. In  cross-examination he stated that the case against RW 2  is still  pending in  the court and as far as he could remember he  had no  driving licence.  The evidence  of  the owner of the truck is totally unreliable. The evidence of RW 2 is  self-serving and  is made  with a  view to  escape the prosecution that  was launched  against him. It is therefore surprising that  the High  Court observed that it is evident from the  material on  record that  RW 2 did not possess the driving licence. [307H-308D]      3. Under S. 96(2)(b)(ii) the insurer can defend a claim for compensation  on the  ground that the vehicle was driven by a person who was not duly licensed. Apart from making the averment in  his written  statement the insurer did not take any steps  to establish  that the  vehicle was  driven by  a person who was not properly licensed. The evidence of AWs. 4 and 5  clearly establishes  that  R.W.  2  was  driving  the vehicle. [308E-F]      4. The  Motor Accident  Claims  Tribunal  rejected  the evidence of  AWs. 4  and 5 on the ground that as the time of accident is  said to  be 1  a.m. it  is not possible for the witnesses to  have recognised  R.W. 2 (driver). The evidence of AW  4 was  rejected as  he failed  to identify RW 2. AW 5 stated that  he knew RW 2 and that it was he who was driving the truck  and that  he ran away after causing the accident. The  basis   on  which  the  Claims  Tribunal  came  to  the conclusion  that   the  identity   of  the  driver  was  not established is  not acceptable.  Equally unacceptable is the conclusion of  the High  Court  that  as  suggested  by  the counsel for  the respondents  the truck  was stolen  by some irresponsible person  who did  not know  driving and  by his reckless  act   caused  the  accident.  There  has  been  no discussion of the evidence of AWs 4 and 5.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

                                           [306F-G, H-307A]      5. The deceased at the time of his death was working as a Patwari and was drawing Rs. 109/- per month as his salary, out of  which he used to handover Rs. 100/- to Appellant No. 1 for  household expenses.  The deceased had many more years to go  and his contribution to the household which consisted of his  wife and  four children  would have  increased.  Rs. 20,000/- as  compensation and  Rs. 2,500/- as costs awarded. [308H-309A]      6. The  instant case brings into focus the difficulties experienced by  dependants in  obtaining relief  before  the Motor Accidents  Claims Tribunal.  The  law  as  it  exists, requires that  the claimant  should prove that the driver of the vehicle  was guilty  of rash  and negligent driving. The burden thus  placed is very heavy and difficult to discharge by the claimant. The records of police investigation are not made  available   to  the   Tribunal.   The   officers   who investigated the  accident  are  seldom  available  to  give evidence before  the Claims Tribunal and assist it in coming to a proper conclusion. The insurance company in quite a 302 few cases,  takes an  unreasonable stand raises all sorts of untenable pleas just to thwart relief to thee dependants. In many of the claims it turns out to be beyond the capacity of the claimant  to maintain his claim in a court of law. It is for the  legislature to  make provisions  for immediate  and adequate relief  to the  dependants in motor accident cases. [309B, E-F, 310E]      7. The legislature may consider making the liability to pay minimum  compensation absolute as is provided for to the dependants of  victims in  rail and  air accidents.  When  a person  dies   in  a  motor  accident,  the  number  of  his dependants  and  the  period  of  their  dependency  may  be ascertained. The  minimum compensation  may  be  paid  every month to  the dependants  according to  their share  for the period to  which they  are entitled. The insurance companies being nationalised  the  necessity  for  awarding  lump  sum payment to  secure the  interest of  the  dependants  is  no longer there. Regular monthly payments could be made through one of  the nationalised  banks  nearest  to  the  place  of residence of  the dependants. Payment of monthly instalments and avoidance of lump sum payment would reduce substantially the burden  on the  insurer and consequently of the insured. [310E-G]      Minu B.  Mehta &  Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr., 1977.  Accidents Claims  Journal-118; State of Haryana v. Darshan  Devi & Ors., 1979 Accidents Claims Tribunal 205; referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1455 of 1969 Appeal  by Special  Leave from  the Judgment  and Order dated 7-12-1967  of the  Punjab and  Haryana High  Court  in F.A.O. No. 10 of 1963.      Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Appellants.      R. A. Gupta for Respondent No. 1.      V. C.  Mahajan,  Naunit  Lal  and  Kailash  Vasdev  for Respondent No. 2.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KAILASAM J.  This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court  to Bishan Devi widow of late Bhagwan Das and her four children  against the  judgment  and  order  dated  7th December, 1967  of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

dismissing the  Claimants’ F.A.O. No. 10 of 1962 against the award of Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dismissing their claim.      The appellants  filed a petition on 4th September, 1961 before  the   Chairman,  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh  alleging that  the husband  of the first appellant died  by having  been  run  over  by  a  lorry  at midnight between  the 8th  and 9th  July, 1961,  at about  a distance of  60 feet  from the road. It was alleged that the truck was  coming from  Jullundur and  it took a sudden turn and ran  over the  first appellant’s  husband, Shri  Bhagwan Das, and  that it  was being  driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants 2 to 5 were the minor children of the first appellant, all of them being below 11 years 303 of age  on the  date of  the filing  of the petition. It was alleged that  the monthly  income of  the deceased  was  Rs. 109/- per  month and  a claim  was made  for Rs.  50,000  as compensation.      The respondents to the petition were (1) Sirbaksh Singh and (2) The Motor Owners’ Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd., Belgaum the insurer.  The written  plea  was  filed  by  the  second respondent, the  insurer, on 10th October, 1961. Some of the pleas are  noteworthy and it is necessary to set them out in some detail.  In para  4 the insurer pleaded that the "truck was stolen  by somebody  while it  was standing. A report to the police  was made  to  this  effect.  Whoever  made  this accident, if any, drove the truck without the consent of the owner, and,  therefore, the  respondents are not liable". In its reply  parawise in paragraph 1 it reiterated "This truck did not  meet with  any accident nor was any intimation sent to the  replying respondent".  In paragraph  2 it  was again reiterated "No  accident took  place  as  alleged.  Somebody stole away  the truck  without the knowledge of the owner or driver.  The   respondents  are   not  liable   to  pay  any compensation. The  person  liable  is  the  person  who  was driving the  truck at  the relevant time and not the owner." In paragraph 11 it was pleaded "that the replying respondent is, in  any case,  absolved from  any possible  liability in connection with the alleged accident under the provisions of Sections 95  and 96(2)  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". In paragraph 12  it was  stated that the "offending vehicle was being driven  at the  relevant time  by a  driver who had no driving licence  and was  not even  an authorised  driver of respondent No.  1, as  he had stolen the truck and the owner is therefore  not liable". Again in paragraph 13 the insurer pleaded that  the "truck  at the  time of  the accident  was being unauthorisedly  used and driven without the permission or authority  of the  owner. As  the truck  was  being  used without the  authority of the owner, therefore, the owner is not vicariously liable for the tort. The replying respondent is, therefore, also not liable."      The first  respondent, the  owner of  the vehicle filed his  written  statement  on  16th  November,  1961.  In  his statement  he  stated  while  dealing  with  the  merits  in paragraph 1  that "this truck did not meet with any accident nor was  any intimation sent to the replying respondent". In paragraph 2  he stated  that "No  such accident  occurred as alleged in  which the husband of the applicant may have been killed due to the negligence of the driver of respondent No. 1. Allegation  of negligence  on the  part of  the driver is denied as incorrect."      On these pleadings parties went to trial. The claimants examined 5  witnesses AWs 1 to AWs 5. AW. 1 is Bachan Singh. He was  sleeping on  the night  of occurrence on the roof of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

the Trade Union Office. The witness and others heard hue and cry at night when the offending truck 304 ran over the deceased. Bachan Singh and others came down and extricated  the   deceased  and   two  other   persons  from underneath the  truck. The deceased died at the spot and two other injured were removed to the Civil Hospital, Jullundur. AW. 2  is Darshan  Singh. He  stated that he was sleeping in his truck  on the  night of  the accident. He on hearing the alarm got  up and  saw the two constables where the accident had taken  place. Bhagwan Das was extricated from underneath the truck  with two  other injured persons. Bhagwan Das died at the  spot. According  to the  witness the  accident  took place at  2 A.M.  and the  deceased was  carried in the same offending truck  to the  hospital. AW.  3 is  not a material witness as  he does  not speak  of the incident but only saw the dead  body and  identified it. AW. 4 is Shiv Charan Das. He and another constable were on patrol duty on the night of the occurrence. At 1 a.m. the truck came from Jullundur side at a  fast speed  and turned  towards the adda of the Union. Three persons  including the  deceased were  sleeping on the kacha on  cot which  were run over. The deceased was injured seriously. He  along with  others were  removed to the Civil Hospital, Jullundur,  in the  same truck. The witness lodged the F.I.R.  with the  A.S.I.  who  came  at  the  spot  from Kartarpur. In  cross-examination the  witness stated "So far as I remember Anoop Singh had no driving licence." AW. 5 was on patrol  duty along  with AW. 4 and at about 1 a.m. he saw the truck  coming from  Jullundur side with registration No. PNJ-6430 at  a fast  speed. The truck turned to its left and overran the  three cots on which three persons were sleeping and struck against the door of union office. The sleepers on the cots were injured and Bhagwan Das had died subsequently. According to  the witness  one Anoop  Singh was  driving the truck. In  cross-examination he  stated "I  do not  know  if Anoop Singh possessed the driving licence".      On the  side of  the respondents three witnesses RWs. 1 to 3  were examined.  RW. 1  is the owner of the vehicle. He stated that  on the  night of  the occurrence they drove the truck from Jullundur to Jallowal, his village, and parked it at 11.30 p.m. on the roadside. They left the truck and slept in their  houses. They were informed by one Ishar Singh that the truck  was missing.  They left in search of the truck at about 1 a.m. at Bhogpur. At Bhogpur they learnt at 1.30 a.m. that the  said truck was involved in an accident. He did not know who  removed the  truck. Though  he went  to report the loss of the truck to the police, as he learnt that the truck was caught  in an  accident he  did not  go  to  the  police station and lodge the report about the theft of the vehicle. He denied  that Anoop Singh was driving the truck and caused the accident.  RW. 2  is Anoop  Singh. He stated that he did not know driving 305 and had  not driven  the truck  in question nor did he cause any accident. The evidence of RW. 3 is not material.      On the pleadings and the evidence referred to the Motor Accidents Claims  Tribunal came  to the  conclusion that the claimants had failed to establish the identity of the driver and that  the claimants  were not  even aware of the name of the driver  who had  driven the  offending truck.  Thus  the applicants had failed in proving their case. In view of this finding the  Claims Tribunal  observed that  it had no other alternative but  to decide the issue against the applicants. Because of  this finding  it felt  it was  not necessary  to discuss the  other issues.  The appeal  by the claimants was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

rejected by  the High  Court. The High Court agreed with the finding of  the Claims  Tribunal and observed that "There is no doubt  that the  evidence on record is not enough to show that Anup  Singh or  any other  person directly  or  tacitly authorised by  Sirbaksh was driving the truck at the time of accident. Anup  Singh as is evident from the material on the record did  not possess the driving licence. It is difficult to believe  that Sirbaksh  Singh could  have allowed  him to drive his truck without a driving licence." Holding that the truck was  stolen by  some irresponsible  person who did not know driving and caused the accident by his reckless driving the High  Court found  that the owner of the truck cannot be held to  be responsible.  It is  distressing  to  note  that neither the  Claims Tribunal  nor the  High Court considered the relevant evidence in the case. The claim was rejected by the Tribunal  on the  ground that the identity of the driver had not been established and by the High Court on the ground that "It  is evident  that Anoop  Singh did  not  possess  a driving licence  and that  the  truck  was  stolen  by  some irresponsible person  who did  not know driving and that the owner cannot be held to be responsible".      We cannot  help observing  that the plea put forward by the insurer  is on  the face  of it  frivolous  and  totally unacceptable.  According  to  the  insurer  by  his  written statement which  was filed  on 10th  October, 1961  a  month before the  written statement of the owner was filed, it was pleaded that  somebody stole  away  the  truck  without  the knowledge of  the  owner  or  the  driver.  It  was  further contended that  the vehicle was being driven at the relevant time by a person who had no driving licence and was not even an authorised  driver of  respondent No.  1 as he had stolen the truck.  The plea  of the  owner in his written statement which was  filed on  16th November,  1961 more  than a month thereafter is  that  "This  truck  did  not  meet  with  any accident  nor  was  any  intimation  sent  to  the  replying respondent". It  may be noted that in this written statement which was  filed after  a fairly  long interval  there is no allegation by the owner that the truck was stolen. We do not know 306 on what  basis the  insurer about a month before the written statement was  filed by the owner alleged that the truck was stolen without  the knowledge  of the  owner or  the driver. While the  owner did  not complain  about any  theft of  the vehicle the  insurer professes  further knowledge  that  the vehicle was  driven by  somebody who  had no driving licence without the authorisation of the owner.      The F.I.R.  was lodged  at the  police station  at 4-30 a.m. at  Kartarpur which  is 12  miles  from  the  scene  of occurrence. The occurrence took place at about 2 a.m. In the F.I.R. which  was lodged  without any  delay, Shivcharan Das Constable, who  is examined  as AW.  4 stated that he was on patrol duty  along with  Joginder Nath and when they reached the pucca  road near  Truck Stop Union Bhogpur the truck No. 6430/PNJ which  was being  driven by Anoop Singh driver at a very fast  speed and carelessly, came and turned to the left below the  road towards  Truck Union.  The truck overran the three cots  and collided  against the  doors of  the room of Truck Union  Office and  stopped. All  the three  cots  were smashed and  the  three  persons  sleeping  over  them  were seriously injured.  He further  stated that  Anoop Singh ran away leaving  the truck. The injured along with the deceased were taken  to the  Civil Hospital Bhogpur for treatment. As the doctor  was not  present the  two injured  were taken to Jullundur in  the same  truck. The  F.I.R.  was  immediately

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

registered. This  witness in  his evidence corroborated what he stated  in the  F.I.R. The  evidence of  A.W.4  was  also corroborated by  the testimony  of AW. 5, Joginder Nath, who was on patrol duty along with AW. 4. He stated that at about 1 a.m.  a truck  came from  Jullundur side with registration No. PNJ-6430  with fast  speed. It  turned to  its left  and overran the  three cots in which three persons were sleeping and struck against the door of the Union’s office. The Motor Accidents Claims  Tribunal rejected  the evidence  of AWs. 4 and 5  on the ground that as the time of accident is said to be 1  a.m. it  is not  possible for  the witnesses  to  have recognised the driver. The evidence of AW. 4 was rejected as he failed to identify Anoop Singh. AW. 5 stated that he knew Anoop Singh and that it was he who was driving the truck and that Anoop  Singh  ran  away  after  causing  the  accident. Neither AW.  4 nor  AW. 5 was asked that they would not have been in  a position  to see the driver as they were about 30 to 40  yards away when the accident took place. According to AW. 4 the deceased and the other injured were removed to the Bhogpur hospital and from there to the Jullundur hospital in the same truck. We fail to understand the basis on which the Claims Tribunal  came to the conclusion that the identity of the driver was not established. Equally, unacceptable is the conclusion of  the High  Court that  "as  suggested  by  the counsel for  the respondents  the truck  was stolen  by some irres- 307 ponsible person  who did  not know  the driving  and by  his reckless  act   caused  the   accident."  There   has   been practically no  discussion of  the evidence of AWs. 4 and 5. There is  no reference  to the prompt F.I.R. lodged by AW. 4 who was  on patrol  duty wherein  the  material  particulars about the incident and the driver have been furnished.      The suggestion  made by the counsel for the respondents that the  truck was  stolen, as  pointed  earlier,  was  not pleaded by the owner of the vehicle even though he filed his written statement  on 16th  November, 1961,  about  a  month after the  date of the occurrence. All that the owner stated was that  the truck  did not meet with any accident. When he was examined  he stated  that he  parked the  truck at 11-30 p.m. on the roadside but when he returned he found the truck missing. He left in search of the truck at 1 a.m. and learnt at 1-30  a.m. that  the truck  was involved  in an accident. Though he  went to report the loss of the truck as he learnt that it  was involved  in an  accident he  did not go to the police station  and lodge  a report  regarding  theft.  This statement is  directly contrary  to what  he stated  in  the written statement  that the  truck did  not  meet  with  any accident. The  insurer who  filed his  written  statement  a month before  the owner  filed the  written statement stated that the  truck was  stolen by somebody and that a report to the police  was made to this effect. No such report was ever made to  the police  and this  statement is  clearly  false. Later in the course of the statement the insurer stated that the truck did not meet with any accident. He further went to the extent  of stating  that somebody  stole away  the truck without the  knowledge of  the owner of the driver, and that if at  all it  is only  the person who was driving the truck who is  liable and  not the owner. It is significant to note that no  one was  examined to substantiate the facts alleged in the written statement of the insurer. The insurer was not satisfied with  the above  mentioned  false,  frivolous  and irresponsible allegations.  He proceeded  to state  that the driver who  was driving  the vehicle  did not have a driving licence and was not the authorised driver of the owner as he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

had stolen  the truck.  Apart from not examining himself the insurer did  not make  any attempt  to substantiate his plea that the driver who was driving the vehicle did not have the driving licence.  We are  constrained to state that the plea taken by  both the  owner and  the insurer is palpably false and made  without any sense of responsibility with a view to somehow escape  the liability.  It is  most unbecoming of an insurance  company   to  have  acted  in  this  callous  and irresponsible manner.      There is  no finding  by the  Claims Tribunal  that the truck was  driven by  an unauthorized person. The High Court found that the truck ought to have been stolen and driven by some irresponsible  person who did not know the driving. The High Court has stated "Anoop Singh as is 308 evident from  the material  on record  did not  possess  the driving licence".  The evidence that Anoop Singh was driving the vehicle  was given  by AWs.  4 and  5, the  policemen on patrol duty.  According to  AW. 4  the truck  was driven  by Anoop Singh.  In fact  in his  F.I.R. he  stated that it was Anoop Singh  who was driving the truck. In cross-examination the witness  stated that  the case  against Anoop  Singh  is still pending  in the  court and as far as he could remember he had  no driving licence. AW. 5 when questioned stated: "I do not  know if  Anoop Singh possessed the driving licence". According to the owner Anoop Singh was not the driver and it was wrong  to say that Anoop Singh was driving the truck and caused the  accident. Anoop  Singh  when  examined  as  RW.2 stated that  he did  not know driving and had not driven the truck in  question nor did he cause any accident. As we have pointed out  earlier the  evidence of the owner of the truck is totally unreliable. The evidence of RW. 2 is self-serving and is  made with  a view to escape the prosecution that was launched against  him. The  only material  about Anoop Singh not having  a driving  licence is  the statement of AW. 4 in cross-examination that  he did  not remember  whether  Anoop Singh had  a licence  and that of AW. 5 that he did not know whether Anoop  Singh possessed  the driving  licence. It  is surprising that  the High Court observed "It is evident from the material  on record that Anoop Singh did not possess the driving licence."      Under Sec.  96(2) (b)  (ii) the  insurer can  defend  a claim for  compensation on  the ground  that the vehicle was driven by  a person  who was  not duly  licensed. Apart from making the averment in his written statement the insurer did not take  any steps to establish that the vehicle was driven by a  person who  was not properly licensed. The evidence of AWs. 4 and 5 who have been examined clearly establishes that Anoop  Singh   was  driving   the  vehicle.  The  two  stray suggestions and  the reply given by the two witnesses is not sufficient to establish that Anoop Singh was not licensed to drive a  truck. It  is the  duty  of  the  insurer  to  have substantiated his  plea. We  have no hesitation in rejecting the insurer’s  plea as  false especially  as the  owner  who filed the  written statement  a month  later did not support the former’s plea.      The deceased  at the  time of  his death was working as Patwari and  was drawing  Rs. 109/-  p.m. as his salary. The wife of  the deceased  Bishan Devi as AW. 6 has deposed that the deceased  was drawing  a salary  of Rs. 109/50 per month out of  which he  used to  handover Rs.  100/-  to  her  for household expenses.  The deceased  had many more years to go and his contribution to the household which consisted of his wife  and   four  children  would  have  increased.  In  the circumstances we  feel that  a compensation  of Rs. 20,000/-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

and costs of 309 Rs. 2,500/-  in  all  the  courts  is  payable  by  the  two respondents to  her and  the four children. The wife and the four children  will take  the amount  equally. The amount of Rs. 20,000/-  will bear  interest at  6% per  annum from the date of  the claim i.e. from 4th September, 1961. There will be a joint decree against both the respondents.      The instant  case brings  into focus  the  difficulties experienced by  dependants in  obtaining relief  before  the Motor Accidents  Claims Tribunal.  The victim  in this  case Bhagwan Das  was run  over by  a Motor  vehicle on the night between 8th  and 9th  July, 1961 leaving behind him his wife Bishan Devi and four minor children. For Eighteen long years they have  been before  courts asking  for some compensation for  the  death  of  their  bread-winner  due  to  rash  and negligent driving  of a  motor vehicle.  One is  tempted  to remark that  they would  have been  better of  but for their hope of  getting some relief in courts. They not only had to spend their  time in courts but to borrow to fight for their rights. It  is  common  knowledge  that  such  helpless  and desperate condition is exploited by unscrupulous persons who manage to  get away  with the bulk of the compensation money if and when the claimants succeed in getting it.      The law  as it stands requires that the claimant should prove that  the driver of the vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent driving.  The burden thus placed is very heavy and difficult to  discharge by  the  claimant.  The  records  of police investigation are not made available to the Tribunal. The  officers  who  investigated  the  accident  are  seldom available to  give evidence  before the  Claims Tribunal and assist in  coming to  a  proper  conclusion.  The  insurance company in  quite a  few cases, as in the present one, takes an unreasonable  stand and  raises all  sorts  of  untenable pleas just  to thwart  relief to  the dependants. In many of the claims  it turns  out to  be beyond  the capacity of the claimant to maintain his claim in a court of law.      Due to  the  inordinate  delay  in  disposal  of  claim petitions before  the motor Claims Tribunal the badly needed relief to  the claimants is not available for several years. Further time  is taken  in appeals. All along the dependants will have  to carry  on without any relief. It has been time and again  pointed out by courts that insistence of proof of rash and  negligent driving  causes considerable hardship on the claimants.      We may  point out  that repeated  suggestions have been made by  this Court  and several  High Courts expressing the desirability of  bringing a  social  insurance  which  would provide for  direct payment to the dependants of the victim. This  Court   in  Minu  B.  Mehta  and  Anr.  v.  Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. has referred to the deci- 310 sion of  the Kerala  High Court  in Kasavan  Nair  v.  State Insurance Officer  where the  High  Court  expressed  itself thus:           "Out of  a sense of humanity and having due regard      to the  handicap of the innocent victim in establishing      the negligence of the operator of the vehicle a blanket      liability must be cast on the insurers." The Madras  High Court in M/s. Ruby Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Govindaraj and  Ors. has  suggested the  necessity of having social  insurance   to  provide   cover  for  the  claimants irrespective of  proof of negligence to a limited extent say Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- a month.      In a recent decision in the State of Haryana v. Darshan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Devi & Ors. this Court observed:-           "Now that  insurance against  third party  risk is      compulsory and  motor  insurance  is  nationalised  and      transport itself  is largely by State Undertakings, the      principle  of  no  fault  liability  and  on  the  spot      settlement of claims should become national policy."      Unless these  ideas are accepted by the legislature and embodied in  appropriate  enactments  Courts  are  bound  to administer and give effect to the law as it exists today.      It is  for  the  legislature  to  make  provisions  for immediate and  adequate relief  to the  dependants in  motor accident cases.  The legislature  may  consider  making  the liability  to   pay  minimum  compensation  absolute  as  is provided for  to the  dependants of  victims in rail and air accidents. When  a person  dies in  a  motor  accident,  the number of  his dependants and the period of their dependency may be  ascertained. The  minimum compensation  may be  paid every month  to the  dependants according to their share for the period to which they are entitled.      The insurance  companies are  now nationalised  and the necessity for  awarding  lump  sum  payment  to  secure  the interest of  the dependants  is  no  longer  there.  Regular monthly  payment   could  be   made  through   one  of   the nationalised banks  nearest to the place of residence of the dependants. Payment  of monthly instalments and avoidance of lump sum  payment would  reduce substantially  the burden on the insurer  and consequently  of the insured. Ordinarily in arriving at the lump sum payable, the Court takes the figure at about  12 years  payment. Thus  in the  case  of  monthly compensation of Rs. 250/- payable, the lump 311 sum arrived  at would  be  between  30,000/-  and  35,000/-. Regular monthly  payment of  Rs. 250/-  can be made from the interest of  the lump  sum alone  and the  payment  will  be restricted only  for the period of dependency of the several dependants. In most cases it is seen that a lump sum payment is not  to the  advantage of the dependants as large part of it is  frittered away  during litigation  and by  payment to persons assisting in the litigation. It may also be provided that if  the dependants  are not  satisfied with the minimum compensation payable they will be at liberty to pursue their remedies before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. N.V.K.                                       Appeal allowed. 312