GIAN CHAND & ORS. versus GURLABH SINGH & ORS.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1096, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1096 
GIAN CHAND & ORS. 
v. 
GURLABH SINGH & ORS. 
(CivilAppeal No.14731 of2015) 
DECEMBER 15, 2015 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Application for 
c compensation - Motor accident- Rash and negligent driving 
by bus driver resulting in the death of school teacher- Claim 
petition uls. 166 by parents-Award of Rs. 25, 0001- under no 
fault liability by the tribunal holding that the accident was 
caused due to mechanical failure for which driver could not 
D be said at fault - High Court upheld the award - On appeal, 
held: Courts below committed grave error of law while arriving 
at the findings as to the method and manner in which accident 
took place - Reliable evidence on behalf of the claimants 
that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its 
E driver - Pleas by the driver as well as the Transport 
Undertaking totally at variance - Further, the driver did not 
state that due to road condition the bus jumped all of a 
sudden, and also suppressed the fact that the bus initially 
dashed a stationary tractor, thus the version of the driver not 
F reliable - Furthermore, mere mechanical failure is not 
enough to exonerate the Transport Undertaking from its 
liability in the absence of evidence being adduced that the 
vehicle was maintained properly- Thus, the parents awarded 
lump sum compensation of Rs. 7, 50, 0001- along with interest 
G at the rate of 6 % pa from the date of filing of claim
petition till 
its realization. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No: 
14731 of2015 
1096
GIAN CHAND & ORS. v. GURLABH SINGH & ORS. 
1097 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2014 of the A 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 
862 of -1997 
Piyush Sharma, Vikram Saini, A. K. Mishra for the 
Appellants. 
B 
Soayi B. Qureshi, Ravi Prakash, Udita Singh, Chandra 
Prakash, Rahul Kumar, Meenakshi Midha, C. S. Ashri, Taniya 
Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1.Leave granted. 
2. The appeal arises out of judgment and order passed 
c 
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO 
No.862 of 1997 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the D 
claimants assailing the award dated 8.1.1997 passed in 
M.A.C.T. No.18/1994. 
3. The claimants preferred petition under section 166 
of Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of Mulakh Raj, aged 
E 
25 years, who died in an accident involving Bus No.CH-01-G-
5152. He boarded the said bus from Una for Delhi. Near Kotli 
about 5 kms. before Anandpur Sahib the bus dashed a 
stationary tractor trolley and thereafter struck against a 
eucalyptus tree and turned turtle. It was driven rashly and 
F 
negligently by Gurlabh Singh, owned by Chandigarh Transport 
Undertaking. The deceased was the sole bread winner of the 
family, used to earn Rs.45q2 per month, was a Headmaster 
and in addition used to earn Rs.1000 per month from 
agriculture. 
G 
4. The respondent driver contested the claim petition and 
contended that the accident was not the outcome
of rash and 
negligent driving but due to a sudden breaking of belt of spring 
the accident took place. He was not at fault. 
H
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
5. The Transport Undertaking in a separate statement 
contended that when the bus reached near village Solkhain, 
two scooterists came from the opposite side. The scooter was 
driven rashly arid negligently and struck the bus on the driver 
side which was the cause of accident. The accident did not 
B take place due to fault of the bus driver. 
6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the 
conclusion that accident was caused due to sudden breaking 
of belts of springs for which driver could not be said to be at 
c fault. Under no fault liability a sum of Rs.25,000 had been 
awarded to the claimants. The claim petition was dismissed. 
The High Court has affirmed the award hence the present 
appeal before us. 
7. It was strenuously contended by learned counsel 
D appearing on behalf of the appellants that the courts below 
have erred in law in dismissing the claim petition. Pleas totally 
at variance from each other have been taken by the driver and 
Transport Undertaking in their repiy and the statement of 
E mechanic that breaking of belt of springs can take place in 
case brakes are applied all of a sudden, has been ignored. 
The finding recorded by the courts below that the driver did 
not drive the bus rashly and negligently is perverse and 
deserves to be set aside. Suitable compensation be awarded. 
F 
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 
has supported the award. It was contended that the
accident 
took place due to mechanical failure for which driver could not 
be said to be responsible. In the absence of rash and negligent 
driving by the driver of the bus liability has rightly not been 
G fastened on the owner and driver. 
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, 
perusing the evidence and the orders passed by the courts 
below we are of the considered opinion that grave error of law 
H has been committed while arriving at the findings as to the
GIAN CHAND & ORS. v. GURLABH SINGH & ORS. 
1099 
[ARUN MISHRA,J.] 
method and manner in which accident has taken place and as A 
to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. There is reliable 
evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants that the bus was 
driven at high speed and it dashed firstly against the stationary 
tractor parked below the road and thereafter it dashed against 
the eucalyptus tree. The Transport Undertaking has taken totally B 
different plea that the scooterists came from the opposite side 
and dashed against the driver's side of the bus which was the 
cause of accident. The driver has not taken the stand that any 
scooter was involved in the accident. The pleas taken by the 
driver as well as the Transport Undertaking are totally at C 
variance. It is clear that they have not come to the tribunal with 
Clean hands. Even otherwise there is nothing to doubt the 
version of the claimants and their witnesses that the bus was 
driven rashly and negligently. Ram Kishan, PW-3, has clearly D 
stated that the bus was driven rashly and it came from Nang al 
side and dashed the stationary tractor which was parked below 
the road, and thereafter the bus dashed eucalyptus tree. He 
has clearly stated that there were no pits around the place of 
occurrence. Whereas the driver Gurlabh Singh has stated that E 
the bus jumped and owing to that belts of springs were broken, 
as such he lost control of the bus and it struck with the eucalyptus 
tree. A bare perusal of
the FIR substantiates the plea of the 
claimants and not of the driver. Driver has not pleaded in reply 
that due to road condition the bus jumped all of a sudden, and 
F 
has also suppressed the fact that the bus initially dashed a 
stationary tractor. Thus the version of the driver is not reliable. 
When we come to the statement of the mechanic he has 
categorically stated that the belt of springs could have been 
broken in case brakes were suddenly applied. Thus it appears G 
that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and 
initially dashed the stationary tractor and then a eucalyptus tree. 
In that process due. to application of brakes belt of springs 
was broken. The plea of Transport Undertaking that a scooterist 
was involved in the accident is totally a false plea and is not H
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
A supported by its driver. In the circumstances there is no escape 
from the conclusion that the bus was driven in a rash and 
negligent manner by its driver. Apart from that merely a 
mechanical failure is not enough to exonerate the Transport 
Undertaking from its liability in the absence of evidence being 
B adduced that the vehicle was maintained properly. 
10. Coming to the question of compensation to be 
awarded the claimants are the parents. Brothers could not be 
said to be dependent on the earning of the deceased. 
C Considering the fact that the deceased was teaching in a 
school, in totality of facts and circumstances, it would be 
appropriate to award a lump sum compensation_ <;>f 
Rs. 7,50,000/- to the parents along with interest at the rate of 6 
per cent per annum from.the date of filing of claim petition till 
D its realization. 
E 
11. The appeal is allowed. Let the Transport Undertaking 
deposit the amount awarded within a period of three months. 
No order as to costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed.