2018 INSC 0076
1
REPORTABLE
              
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7300­7309 OF 2016
ARCHIT SAINI AND ANR. ….   APPELLANTS
                        
:Versus:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. AND ORS. ….RESPONDENTS 
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. These appeals take exception  to the  judgment  and order
dated 1 st
  February, 2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and   Haryana  at   Chandigarh   in   F.A.O.   Nos.1179,   1180,   1181,
1182, 1183, 1318, 1452, 4596, 4597 & 4598 of 2013, whereby
the   High   Court   modified   the   award   passed   by   the   Motor
Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   Yamuna   Nagar,   Jagadhari,   on   the
finding   that   it   was   a   case   of   “contributory   negligence”   and
resultantly   held   that   the   claimants   –   injured   were   entitled   to

2
only 50% of the total compensation awarded to them including
the enhanced compensation. 
2. The  sole  question  raised  in  the   present  appeals is  about
the   justness and tenability of the approach of the High Court
in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the
factum   that   the   motor   accident   which   occurred   on   15 th
December, 2011 at about 10.30 P.M. was due to parking of the
offending   vehicle   bearing   No.HR­02­AF­8590   (Gas   Tanker)   in
the middle of the road in a negligent manner. 
3. In   the   petition   for   compensation   filed   before   the   Motor
Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (for   short,   “the   Tribunal”),   it   was
alleged   that   the   accident   was   caused   due   to   parking   of   the
offending   Gas   Tanker   in   the   middle   of   the   road   without   any
indicator   or   parking   lights.   The   claimant   examined   the   eye­
witness   Sohan   Lal   (PW­7)   who,   in   his   affidavit,   gave   an
account of the cause of accident in the following words:  
“…   That on 15.12.2011 at about 10.30 P.M. I along with
P.H.G.   Ajit   Singh   was   present   near   Sanjha   Chulha
Dhaba,   on   the   National   Highway,   (which   leads   to
Jammu)   in   the   area   of   Village   Ajijpur,   P.S.   Sujanpur.   At
that time all the traffic was diverted  on the Eastern side

3
of the road, as the Western side of road was closed due
to   construction   work.   In   meantime,   a   Maruti   Car   No.HR­
02­K/0448 came from Jammu side (Madhopur side) and
struck against the back of the Gas Tanker  as the driver
of   car   could   not   spot   the   parked   tanker   due   to
flash­lights of the oncoming traffic from front side.
Then   we   rushed   towards   the   spot   of   accident,   and
noticed   that   the   said   tanker   was   standing   parked
in   middle   of   the   road,   without   any   indicators   or
parking   lights .   Due   to   the   accident   the   car   was
damaged   extensively.   The   driver   of   the   Car   and   a   lady
sitting   by   his   side,   died   at   the   spot.   Two   children,   who
were on the rear seat of car were also injured.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. The   said   witness   was   cross­examined   by   the
respondents.   The   relevant   portion   of   his   cross­examination
reads thus: 
“… We   were   standing   on   Dhaba   on   duty   with   our
motorcycle.   The   truck   was   standing   just   opposite   the
dhaba on the other side of the road. I was able to see the
truck   at   that   time.   There   was   no   fog   at   that   time.   There
was lights on the dhaba and the truck was visible to me
due   to   light   of   dhaba.   I   was   standing   at   the   distance
about   70   ft.   from   the   truck   because   there   was   road
between me and the truck. I have heard the voice/sound
caused   by   the   accident   only   then   I   noticed   at   the   car
struck   against   the   truck.   I   have   not   seen   the   car   before
the accident, and only seen after the accident. I reached
the spot after hearing the sound of accident. I cannot tell
the speed of the car because I have not seen the car. The

4
road   is   about   88   ft.   wide   i.e.   44   ft.   on   each   side   with   a
divider  in between. The left portion of the truck was just
on the edge of the road towards the kucha portion.”
5. The   respondents   had   opposed   the   claim   petition   and
denied   their   liability   but   did   not   lead   any   evidence   on   the
relevant   issue   to   dispel   the   relevant   fact.   The   Tribunal   after
analysing   the   evidence,   including   the   Site   Map   (Ext.P­45)
produced   on   record   along   with   charge­sheet   filed   against   the
driver   of   the   Gas   Tanker   and   the   arguments   of   the
respondents,  answered issue  No.1 against   the  respondents   in
the following words:  
“ 21.   Our   own   Hon’ble   High   Court   in   a   case   captioned
Lekhu Singh and other Vs. Udey Singh and others, (2007
4   PLR   507   held   that   while   considering   a   claim   petition,
the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry and act not as
criminal   court   so   as   to   find   whether   the   claimants   have
established   the   occurrence   beyond   shadow   of   any
reasonable   doubt.   In   the   enquiry,   if   there   is   prima   facie
evidence   of   the   occurrence   there   is   no   reason   to
disbelieve   such   evidence.   The   statements   coupled   with
the facts of registration of FIR and trial of the accused in
a   criminal   court   are   sufficient   to   arrive   at   a   conclusion
that   the   accident   has   taken   place.   Likewise,   in   Kusum
Lata   Vs.   Satbir,   2011   (2)   RCR  ©	  379   (SC)   Hon’ble   Apex
Court   has   held   that   in   a   case   relating   to   motor   accident
claims, the claimants are not required to rove the case as

5
it   is   required   to   be   done   in   a   criminal   trial.   The   Court
must   keep   this   distinction   in   mind.   Strict   proof   of   an
accident   caused   by   a   particular   bus   in   a   particular
manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants.
The claimants were merely to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard
of   proof   beyond   reasonable   doubt   could   not   have   been
applied. 
22.   After   considering   the   submissions   made   by   both   the
parties,   I   find   that   PW7   Sohan   Lal   eye­witness   to   the
occurrence   has   specifically   stated   in   his   affidavit   Ex.
PW7/A   tendered   in   his   evidence   that   on   15.12.2011   at
about   20.30   p.m.   he   alongwith   PHG   Ajit   Singh   was
present near Sanjha Chulha Dhaba on the National High
Way leads to Jummu. All the traffic of road was diverted
on   the   eastern   side   of   the   road   on   account   of   closure   of
road   on   western   side   due   to   construction   work.   In   the
meantime   a   Maruti   car   bearing   No.HR­02­K­0448   came
from   Jammu   side   and   struck   against   the   back   of   Gas
Tanker as the driver of the car could not spot the parked
tanker due to the flash lights of the oncoming traffic from
front side. Then they rushed towards the spot of accident
and noticed that the said tanker was standing parked in
the middle of the road without any indicators or parking
lights. 
23.   The   statement   of   this   witness   clearly
establishes that this was the sole negligence on the
part of the driver of the gas tanker especially when
the accident was caused on 15.12.2011 that too at
about   10.30   p.m.   which   is   generally   time   of   pitch
darkness.  In this way, the driver of the car cannot
be   held   in   any   way   negligent   in   this   accident.
Moreover, as per Rules 15 of the Road Regulations,
1989 no vehicle is to be parked on busy road.  

6
24.     The   arguments   of   learned   counsel   for   respondent
that PW7 Sohan Lal has stated in his  cross­examination
that there  was  no  fog at  that  time  and there  were  lights
on   the   Dhaba   and   the   truck   was   visible   to   him   due   to
light of Dhaba and he was standing at the distance of 70
feet from the truck being road between him and the truck
and   he   noticed   at   the   car   when   he   heard   voice/sound
caused by the accident   so the respondent no.1 is not at
all   negligent   in   this   accident   but   these   submissions
will   not   make   the   car   driver   to   be   in   any   way
negligent   and   cannot   give   clean   chit   to   the   driver
of   the   gas   tanker   because   there   is   a   difference
between   the   visibility   of   a   standing   vehicle   from   a
place where the person is standing and by a person
who   is   coming   driving   the   vehicle   because   due   to
flash   lights   of   vehicles   coming   from   front   side   the
vehicle coming from opposite side cannot generally
spot   the   standing   vehicle   in   the   road   that   too   in
nights   time   when   there   is   neither   any   indicator   or
parking   lights   nor   blinking   lights   nor   any   other
indication   given   on   the   back   of   the   stationed
vehicle,   therefore,   the   driver   of   the   car   cannot   be
held to be in any way negligent rather it is the sole
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
Gas   Tanker   as   held   in   Ginni   Devi  and   others’   case
(2008   ACJ   1572),   Mohan   Lal’s   case   (2007   1   ACC
785 (Allahabad). It is not the case of the respondent
that   the  parking   lights   of  the   standing   truck   were
on   or   there   were   any   other   indication   n   the   back
side   of   the   vehicle   standing   on   the   road   to   enable
the   coming   vehicle   to   see   the   standing   truck.   The
other  arguments  of  learned   counsel  for  respondent
no.3   that   the   road   was   sufficient   wide   road   and
that   the   car   driver   could   have   avoided   the
accident,   so   the   driver   of   the   car   was   himself
negligent   in   causing   the   accident   cannot   be
accepted   when   it   has   already   been   held   that   the

7
accident  has been caused due to sole negligence of
the   driver   of   the   offending   stationed   truck   in   the
busy   road.   The   proposition   of   law   laid   down   in   Smt.
Harbans   Kaur   &   others’s   case   (2010   4   PLR   422   (P&H)
and T.M. Chayapathi & another’s case (2005 IV ACC 61
(AP)     is   not   disputed   at   all   but   these   authorities   are   not
helpful   to   the   respondents   being   not   applicable   on   the
facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present   case.   Likewise,
non­examination of minor children of the age of 14 and 9
years   who   lost   their   father   and   mother   in   the   accident
cannot be held to be in any way detrimental to the case
of the claimants when eye witness to the occurrence has
proved   the   accident   having   been   caused   by   the
negligence   of     respondent   no.1/driver   of   the   offending
vehicle.
25.  Moreover, in Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Sham and
others,   1993   (2)   PLR   109,   Sudama   Devi   and   others
Vs.   Kewal   Ram   and   others,   2008   (1)   PLR   444   and
Pazhaniammal   and   others’s   case   (2012   ACJ   1370)
our   own   Hon’ble   High   Court   has   held   that   ‘it   is,
prima   facie   safe   to   conclude   in   claim   cases   that
the   accident   has   occurred   on   account   of   rash   or
negligent   driving   of   the   driver,   if   the   driver   is
facing   the   criminal   trial   on   account   of   rash   or
negligent driving.’
26.   Moreover,   the   respondent   no.1/driver   of   the
offending   vehicle   has   not   appeared   in   the   witness
box   to   deny   the   accident   having   been   caused   by
him,   therefore,   I   am   inclined   to   draw   an   adverse
inference   against   the   respondent   no.1.   In   this
context,   I   draw   support   from   a   judgment   of   the
Hon’ble   Punjab   &   Haryana   High   Court   reported   as
Bhagwanti   Devi   vs.   Krishan   Kumar   Sani   and
others,   1986   ACJ   331.     Moreover,   the   respondent
no.1   has   also   not   filed   any   complaint   to   higher
authorities   about   his   false   implication   in   the

8
criminal   case   so   it   cannot   be   accepted   that   the
respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in this
case. 
27.   In   view   of   above   discussion,   it   is   held   that   the
claimants have proved that the accident has been caused
by   respondent   no.1   by   parking   the   offending   vehicle
bearing No. HR­02­AF­8590 on the middle  of the road in
a negligent manner wherein Vinod Saini and Smt. Mamta
Saini   have   been   died   and   claimants   Archit   Saini   and
Gauri   Saini   have   received   injuries   on   their   person.   Sh.
Vinod   Saini   deceased   who   was   driving   ill   fated   car   on
that   day   cannot   be   held   to   be   negligent   in   any   way.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of claimants.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. When   the   matter   travelled   to   the   High   Court   by   way   of
appeal for  enhancement of compensation,  while accepting the
claim   of   the   claimants­injured   for   giving   additional
compensation,   the   High   Court   overturned   the   finding   of   fact
recorded by  the Tribunal in relation  to issue No.1 and opined
that   it   was   a   case   of   contributory   negligence   of   the   driver   of
the   Maruti   Car   which   met   with   the   accident.   The   High   Court
answered   the   said   issue   in   its   judgment   as   can   be   discerned
from paragraphs 14 & 15, which read thus: 
“ 14.   So   far   as   the   issue   of   contributory   negligence   is
concerned,   it   has   come   in   the   testimony   of   Sohan   Lal,
PW­7,   that   the   tanker/offending   vehicle   was   parked

9
without   indicator   but   the   same   was   visible   from   a
distance of 70 ft. Moreover, a perusal of site plan Ex.P 45
reveals   that  the  offending   vehicle   was  not  parked  in  the
middle of the road. 
15. In view of the statement of PW­7 and site plan Ex.P­
45,   it   is   proved   that   the   tanker/offending   vehicle   was
visible   from   a   distance   of   70   ft.   and   not   parked   in   the
middle of the road. Therefore, in the concerned opinion of
this Court, it is a case of contributory negligence.” 
7. In the present appeals, the moot question is whether the
High   Court   committed   manifest   error   in   reversing   the   well
considered   decision   of   the   Tribunal   on   issue   No.1   answered
against the respondents, instead concluding that it was a case
of   50%   contributory   negligence   on   the   part   of   the   deceased
driver of the Maruti Car.  
8. After having perused the evidence of PW­7, Site Map (Ext.
P­45)   and   the   detailed   analysis   undertaken   by   the   Tribunal,
we have no hesitation in taking the view that the approach of
the   High   Court   in   reversing   the   conclusion   arrived   at   by   the
Tribunal on issue No.1 has been very casual, if not cryptic and
perverse.  Indeed, the appeal before the High Court is required
to be decided on fact and law. That, however, would not permit

10
the   High   Court   to   casually   overturn   the   finding   of   fact
recorded by the Tribunal.  As is evident from the analysis done
by the Tribunal, it is a well considered opinion and a plausible
view.  The   High   Court  has   not  adverted   to   any   specific   reason
as to why the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect or not
supported by the evidence on record.  It is well settled that the
nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is
qualitatively   different   from   the   one   in   criminal   cases,   which
must be beyond any reasonable doubts. The Tribunal applied
the   correct   test   in   the   analysis   of   the   evidence   before   it.
Notably, the High Court has not doubted the evidence of PW­7
as   being   unreliable   nor   has   it   discarded   his   version   that   the
driver of the Maruti Car could not spot the parked Gas Tanker
due   to   the   flash   lights   of   the   oncoming   traffic   from   the   front
side.   Further,   the   Tribunal   also   adverted   to   the   legal
presumption   against   the   driver   of   the   Gas   Tanker   of   having
parked his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the
road.  The   Site   Plan  (Ext.   P­45)   reinforces  the   version   of   PW­7
that   the   Truck   (Gas   Tanker)   was   parked   in   the   middle   of   the

11
road   but   the   High   Court   opined   to   the   contrary   without
assigning   any   reason   whatsoever.   In   our   view,   the   Site   Plan
(Ext. P­45) filed along  with  the charge­sheet does not  support
the   finding   recorded   by   the   High   Court   that   the   Gas   Tanker
was   not   parked   in   the   middle   of   the   road.     Notably,   the   High
Court   has   also   not   doubted   the   claimant’s   plea   that   the   Gas
Tanker/ offending vehicle was parked without any indicator or
parking   lights.   The   fact   that   PW­7   who   was   standing   on   the
opposite side of the road at a distance of about 70 feet, could
see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of the road does
not discredit his version that the Maruti Car coming from the
opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to flash lights
of the oncoming traffic from the front side. It is not in dispute
that the road is a busy road. In the cross­examination, neither
has   any   attempt   been   made   to   discredit   the   version   of   PW­7
nor   has   any   suggestion   been   made   that   no   vehicle   with   flash
lights on was coming from the opposite direction of the parked
Gas Tanker at the relevant time. 

12
9. Suffice it to observe that the approach of the High Court
in   reversing   the   well   considered   finding   recorded   by   the
Tribunal   on   the   material   fact,   which   was   supported   by   the
evidence on record, cannot be countenanced.  
10. Accordingly,   we   have   no   hesitation   in   setting   aside   the
said   finding   of   the   High   Court.   As   a   result,   the   appellants
would   be   entitled   to   the   enhanced   compensation   as
determined   by   the   High   Court   in   its   entirety   without   any
deduction   towards   contributory   negligence.     In   other   words,
we  restore the  finding  of  the  Tribunal  rendered on  issue No.1
against   the   respondents   and   hold   that   respondent   no.1
negligently   parked   the   Gas   Tanker/offending   vehicle   in   the
middle of the road without any indicator or parking lights. 
11. Accordingly,   we   affirm   the   enhanced   compensation
payable   to   the   claimants   as   determined   by   the   High   Court   in
paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:
“ 13.  In view of the above, the claimants­injured are held
entitled   to   the   enhanced   compensation   of   RS.2,80,000/­
[Rs.30,000/­ (enhancement towards ‘pain and suffering’)
+   Rs.20,000/­   (enhancement   towards   loss   of   studies)   +

13
Rs.10,000/­   (enhancement   towards   special   diet)   +
RS.1,90,000/­   (enhancement   towards   ‘loss   of   love   and
affection’)   +   Rs.30,000/­   (enhancement   towards
cremation and last rites)] as indicated above, which shall
be   payable   within   a   period   of   45   days   from   the   date   of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which,
the claimants­appellants shall also be entitled to interest
@   7.5%   per   annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   the   present
appeal till its realization.”
We   set   aside   the   direction   given   by   the   High   Court   in
paragraph   16   of   the   impugned   judgment   regarding   deduction
of   50%   of   the   total   compensation   awarded   to   the   claimants
towards contributory negligence. 
12. The   appeals   are   allowed   in   the   aforementioned   terms
with no order as to costs.
   
.………………………….CJI.
        (Dipak Misra)
…………………………..….J.
                 (A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………..….J.
         (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi;
February 09, 2018.