N. K. V. BROS (P) LTD. versus M. KARUMAI AMMAL AND ORS. ETC.

N. K. V. BROS (P) LTD.

M. KARUMAI AMMAL AND ORS. ETC.

March 21, 1980

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND D. A. DESAI; JJ.]

Mo1or Vehicles Act-Driver of bus acquitted for rash and negligent driv-ing-Civil suit if must also be dismissed.

Indian Penal Code-Section 304A-Requirement of culpable rashness more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to c[1]·eate liqbility.

The petitioner's bus driven by driver hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in the death of some passengers and loss of limb to several othen. The driver was acquitted on the ground that the tragedy was an act of God. The Accidents Tribunal held that despite the screams of the passen-gers about the doogerous over-hanging wire ahead tho rash driver sped towards the spot which resulted in the accident. The High Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that the accident bad taken place due to rashness and negli~ gence of the driver and consequently the petitioner was vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

Dismissing the petition,

HELD : I. The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that therefore the civil suit must follow suit was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and the High Court. [I 02 BJ

2. The requirement of culpable rashness under section 304A l.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. [102 E]

1 [The Accident Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb io niceties and technicalities.] [102. G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Nos .. 937-939 of 1980.

From the Judgment and Order' dated 1-8-1979 of the Madras High Court in A.A.O. Nos. 815-817 of 1977.

T. A. Ramachandran and K. Ramkumar for the Petitioner.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

KRtSllNA IYER, J.-Sri Ramachandran, ably assisted by Sri K. Ram Kumar, presented the case of the petitioner for special leave, as persuasively as the facts permit but while we were impressed with the

industry and advocacy of counsel, we heartily dismiss this petition. Why heartily? Because the High Court, if at all, has erred in favour of the petitioner, not against him.

The Facts : stage carriage belonging to the pet1t1oner was on trip when, after nightfall, the bus hit an over-hanging high ten-sion wire resulting in 26 casualties of which 8 proved instantaneously fatal. criminal case ensued but the accused-driver was acquitted · on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of God! The Accidents Claims Tribunal, which tried the claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, came to the conclusion, affirmed by the High Court, that, despite the screams of the passengers about the dangerous over-hanging wire ahead, the rash driver sped towards the lethal spJt. Some lost their lives instantly; several lost their limbs likewise. The High Court, after examining the materials, concluded :

"We therefore sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negli-gence of R.W. 1 (driver) and consequently the appellant is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant."

The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, there-fore, the civil sait must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under section 304A I.P.C. is more "drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liabi-lity. The quantum of compensation was moderately fixed and al-b though there was, perhaps case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claim; also. Being questions of fact, we are obvi-·ously unwilling to re-open the holdings on culpability and compen-sation.Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially w"iien truck and bus drivers operate .nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often pmuades the courts, as has been observed by us 'Car lier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases ·based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some :doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability [must be inferred fr0m the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We aro e:nph1sising this aspect because we are often distressed by trans-port operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic

impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring' owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief against accidental disable-ment of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in com· pensation. third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient num)!r of tribanals ani the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States 'Te unjustly indifferent in this regard.

We have been taken through few intricate legal submissions by counsel bat We d!~line to interfere u~i!r Article 136 of the Consti· tution especially where human misery is pitted against operational negligence.

Petition . dismissed.