http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3164 of 2008

PETITIONER: MANAGING DIRECTOR B.M.T.C.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/04/2008

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

   CIVIL APPEAL NO.3164 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12854 of 2006)

       Leave granted.         This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the  High Court dated 31st May, 2005 in M.F.A. No.5166 of 2002 whereby the  learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the MACT Court and  allowed the appeal preferred by the Union of India through the Officer  Commandant Army School of Mechanical. The learned Single Judge  reversed the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and awarded a  compensation and apportioned it to 50% \026 50% holding the appellant  herein responsible for this accident on the basis of contributory  negligence.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the  record.         The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal  are that on 30th January, 1994 at  

                       -2- about 7.20 p.m. in the evening the applicant Bistal Seff was driving the  three tons capacity Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No.92D- 90-299 KST on Bangalore Bellary Road near Canara Bank bus stop at  Hebbala i.e. at a distance of about half a kilometer from Hebbala Police  Station.  He was driving the vehicle at the speed of about 45 K.M. per  hour.  It is alleged by the claimant that the vehicle MEF 1543 driven by  the respondent (appellant herein) overtook the claimant’s vehicle and  suddenly stopped on the road without giving any signal.  Therefore, the  respondent herein could not stop the vehicle in time and dashed against  the vehicle of the appellant.  It is alleged that the driver of the appellant  herein was responsible for this accident.  He claimed compensation  against the appellant in a sum of Rs.1,40,773/- and   expenses of  Rs.16,400/- as labour totalling Rs.1,57,173/-.    The claim was contested  by the appellant \026 respondent and the Claims Tribunal after considering  the evidence on record came to conclusion that the claimant’s claim is  without any basis as the claimant was responsible for the accident and  not the appellant \026 respondent.  The M.A.C.T. Court after considering the  relevant documents, i.e. the charge sheet (Exh.P-2), the Inquest Report  (Exh. P-4), the  

                       -3- sketch (Exh. P-3), report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (Exh.P-5) came  to the conclusion that it is the claimant-respondent herein who was

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

responsible for this accident.  The Claim Petition was dismissed.         Aggrieved against this, the claimant filed an appeal before the High  Court.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court without  adverting to  the facts and the reasons given by the MACT Court apportioned the  claim of both and held them contributory negligent and directed that for  the claim of Rs.1,57,173/- both the appellant and respondent shall  contribute to the extent of 50% i.e. compensation in the sum of  Rs.78,587/- with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of  petition till the payment is made.         Aggrieved against this order, the respondent (non claimant) has  filed the present appeal.           After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the  record, we fail to understand the reason given by the learned Single  Judge of the High Court for making the case of contributory negligence.   In fact on the finding recorded by the MACT Court it is more than  apparent that the appellant’s vehicle was supposed to stay at the bus  stand and that the bus was standing there, the  

                       -4- claimant who was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner came  and dashed on the appellant’s bus on rear side. This version has been  fully substantiated by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the relevant  documents, i.e. the charge sheet (Exh.P-2), the Inquest Report (Exh. P-4),  the sketch (Exh. P-3) and the  report of the Military Vehicle Inspector  (Exh.P-5).  On the basis of all these facts, the MACT Court came to the  conclusion that it is military’s vehicle which collided against the  appellant’s vehicle and responsibility for this unfortunate accident is on  claimant.  Consequently, the view taken by the MACT Court appears to  be justified as it is based on the evidence.  Learned Single Judge of the  High Court allowed the appeal without adverting to the facts and the  finding recorded by the MACT Court.  Therefore, the view taken by the  High Court that there is a contributory negligence is without any reason  whatsoever.         Consequently, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of  the High Court and allow this appeal and dismiss the claim.

                       -5-                          Any observation made in this case pertains to the decision of this  case only and will not prejudice the criminal case of the respondent, if it  is pending in the Trial Court.