Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a motor accident compensation claim arising from a fatal collision between a jeep and a passenger bus on February 14, 1959. The deceased, R.J. Kulkarni, Sub-Divisional Officer, was traveling in jeep No. MPK-741 along with Tehsildar G.S. Kulkarni, Shri Vaidya, Agricultural Assistant, and Peon Parashram, driven by Shantaram Patki (P.W.5). When the jeep was proceeding at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour near Karanja, a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction collided with the jeep on the extreme left-hand side, causing the death of R.J. Kulkarni. The respondents, legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim for damages. The trial court found that the death occurred due to inevitable accident but assessed compensation at Rs.20,000 and odd; however, it dismissed the petition on the ground of inevitable accident. On appeal, the High Court of Bombay, by judgment dated July 18, 19 and 20, 1967 in First Appeal Nos. 63 and 79 of 1964, reappreciated the evidence and reversed the finding on negligence, holding that the driver of the passenger bus was negligent. The High Court upheld the amount awarded by the trial court and decreed the claim. The transport company, owner of the bus, appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court considered the sole question whether P.W.5 was negligent in driving the jeep due to which collision occurred. It noted that the High Court had carefully scanned the evidence of P.W.5 and accepted his statement that the jeep had not come to a standstill but was proceeding in slow motion at the time of accident. The High Court observed that Patki could not take the car to the right because that would be wrong side, and could not take further left due to ditch; the reason for continuing on kachcha road was adequate. The High Court held that it was the duty of the bus driver to keep left; if he failed, the fault could not be laid on jeep driver who was already on extreme left correct side. The Supreme Court agreed that this finding was recorded on pure appreciation of evidence and declined to reappreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion. It confirmed the High Court's finding and order, dismissed the appeal with no costs, and held respondents entitled to interest as awarded by the High Court.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Negligence - Concurrent Finding on Negligence - Not mentioned - The High Court reversed trial court's finding of inevitable accident and held the bus driver negligent, accepting evidence that the jeep was on the extreme left and could not move right or further left due to wrong side and ditch. The Supreme Court held that this finding was recorded on pure appreciation of evidence and would not reappreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion on negligence of respective drivers; the appeal was dismissed with no costs, and respondents were entitled to interest as awarded by the High Court (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the jeep driver (P.W.5) was negligent causing the collision; whether Supreme Court should reappreciate evidence on High Court's finding of negligence
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no costs; High Court's finding and order confirmed; respondents entitled to interest as awarded by the High Court.
Law Points
- Supreme Court does not reappreciate evidence on concurrent finding of negligence unless perverse
- finding on pure appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in special leave appeal
- driver on correct side of road not negligent when collision caused by oncoming bus on wrong side
