Case Type: Civil Appeal
Case No: 2538/2009
Appellants: Bimla Devi & Ors.
Respondents: Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors.
Decided On: 15-04-2009
Statues Referred: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Bench: S.B.Sinha, P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Facts:
The husband of the appellant namely, Jawala Ram was a police constable, posted at Dharampur P.S. On 11-2-1997 around 7-8 am Jawala Ram was standing near a shop of one Chand Kishore.
A bus bearing Registration No- HP-14-3596 was parked there. It belonged to the Himachal Road Transportation Corp. The driver Vijay Kumar is alleged to have reversed the bus without blowing the horn and as a result Jawala Ram died on the spot. And the conductor Om Dutt is alleged of careless attitude of not checking whether it was clear for the bus to take reverse.
However the respondent claims a completely different and strange story that the deceased died the previous evening and the dead body was wrapped in a blanket laying near the bus and that the bus driver informed the police personnel whereafter the driver was bogusly implicated.
Apart from the issue of compensation U/S 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal was to decide upon the factum of accident, whether Sh. Jawala Ram died on 11-02-1997 due to rash driving of the driver and negligency of the conductor.
The Tribunal took note of the accident that it occurred on 11-02-1997 at Dharampur and that the post mortem report showed that the death occurred due to brain injury. Death of Jawala Ram due to accident was proved by Shri Dharam Pal (PW3) who was an eye-witness to the occurrence.
The Tribunal did not find the statement of the driver and the conductor to be reliable and also did not believe that the police could fabricate a case against respondent. Hence the Tribunal was convinced that the death took place after Jawala Ram was hit by the bus while reversing it.
Aggrieved by the decision the respondent appealed to the High Court, who upon the findings of fact reversed the decision of the High Court.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether the deceased Jawala Ram died in the bus accident or not.
Obiter Dicta:
In cases where the factual matrix is beyond determination due to lack of evidence then the principle of burden of proof should be applied and the onus of proving the case should lie upon the party contending contrary to the facts bearing confidence.
Ratio Decedendi:
Hon’ble Court agreed to and relied upon the post mortem report. Accepting it to be true about the death of the deceased and that he died due to brain injury.
The Tribunal while dealing with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is not bound by the pleadings of the parties. Its primary function is determine the amount of just compensation. But it is true to the core that in such determination it is sine quo non upon tribunal to consider the occurrence of accident.
The place of occurrence was not far from the police station. Hence it was unbearable that the driver wasn’t aware and he suddenly found the body wrapped in blanket, in the morning. In a small town like Dharampur the body remained undetected was hard to digest despite the fact that it remained near the bus stand and that such place was also near the police station.
The Police themselves should have taken the possession of the body.
In order to determine whether the accident took place by bus or not, it is feasible to apply the principle of burden of proof in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Therefore the onus laid upon the respondents to prove that the dead body wrapped in blanket was there at the spot at such an early hour.
The austere proof of an accident caused via bus in a austere manner was naturally not possible to be done by the Claimant. The claimant is only liable to establish their case of touchstone of preponderance of probability.
Judgment:
The Apex Court’s bench comprising of S.B.Sinha, P. Sathasivam, JJ. Held the following:
The decision of the tribunal that there was no reason to bogusly implicate the driver and conductor was upheld.
The Judgement of the High Court was set aside as it was based upon guess and surmises.
It could not be proved by any evidence on record that the Police might have implicated or fabricated the case against the respondent.
Hence the High Court Judgement failed to sustain and was set aside.
Appeal was allowed without the order of costs.
Conclusion:
In matters of truth and justice there is no place for conjectures. Especially when the matter is upon the courts to decide it is beyond the spirit of the fit case to be judged upon the word on the street. Also to be borne in mind that it is not safe to state anything false in courts of law, the consequences can be extravagant.
So is the in above case where ultimately the truth prevailed in the apex court and the case was brought to its rightful destiny.
