The Apex Court in UPSRTC v. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR
Legal Reasoning
17. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently. 18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to slow down vehicle as he approaches intersection of roads, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the car over which deceased was riding, was approaching intersection. 19. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where drivers of motor vehicles who have caused accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be entitled to recover damages if principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. 20. These provisions (sec.110A and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles. In every way it was new. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 21. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that even if courts may not by interpretation displace the principles of law which are considered to be well settled and, therefore, court cannot dispense with proof of negligence altogether in all cases of motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to develop the law further on the following lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident and, therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC) 1840). 22. By the above process, the burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle was being driven with reasonable care or that there is equal negligence on the part the other side." 5. Going through the factual scenario, it cannot be said that the deceased was in any way negligent just because the driver of UPSRTC bus had tried to save the car but it cannot be said that the deceased who was on bicycle was negligent. 6. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss nor any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages. 7. The claimant - respondent have not filed any cross objection for enhancing the amount granted by the Tribunal in this matter. 8. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed. 9. I am thankful to Sri N.K. Mishra, Advocate who has ably assisted the Court. Order Date :- 22.2.2022/Mukesh Digitally signed by MUKESH SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.26 15:09:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Respondent :- Smt. Gangotri Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- ,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. By way of this appeal the UPSRTC has challenged the award of Rs.1,80,000/- passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ IIIrd Additional District Judge, Meerut whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim being Claim Petition No.140 of 1989 of the present claimant- respondent. 2. The factual data as emerges from the record goes to show that the accident occurred on 14.6.1989 when the deceased was plying a bicycle met with his fate when the bus owned by the appellant dashed with his cycle. The deceased was admitted in hospital for two days then he succumbed to the injuries. The claimant who is the widow of the deceased filed claim for claimaing a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under : "16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one. It is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed.