MOHAR SAI AND ANR.versusGAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.

                         [2018] 4 S.C.R. 509                            509


                     MOHAR SAI AND ANR.                                 A
                                 v.
                   GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8411 of 2015)
                          APRIL 27, 2018                                B
     [DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.140 – When not applicable –
Person died in a motor accident – Claim petition by respondents-
heirs of the deceased – Tribunal decided the petition in favour of
                                                                        C
the respondents holding that the motorcycle at the relevant time was
being driven by appellant No.2 and he had caused the accident
due to rash and negligent driving and granted compensation – High
Court reversed the said finding recorded by Tribunal, however,
maintained the liability fastened on appellants as regards the
compensation – Plea of appellants that in view of finding of High       D
Court that it was a case of contributory negligence as the deceased
himself was driving the motorcycle, at the most respondents would
be entitled to compensation on ‘no fault liability principle’ u/s.140
– Held: High Court committed manifest error in reversing the finding
recorded by the Tribunal – Respondents through their witnesses
                                                                        E
established that the motorcycle was owned by appellant No.1
(father of appellant No.2) and on the day when the accident took
place the motorcycle was driven by appellant no.2 while the deceased
was sitting in the middle and DW-2 was behind him – High Court
did not discard the said version as untruthful, however, selectively
relied on the statements of interested witnesses examined on behalf     F
of the appellants – No infirmity in the finding recorded by the
Tribunal – Once the finding of High Court that the motorcycle was,
in fact, driven by deceased becomes doubtful, the question of
applying s.140 of the Act does not arise – In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, no interference is warranted –
                                                                        G
Constitution of India – Art.136.
        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim under –
Role of Court – Discussed.


                                                                        H
                                509
510           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           Dismissing the appeal, the Court

            HELD : 1.1 In cases where the accident occurs without
      any fault of the owner of the vehicle or the fault of t8411he other
      vehicle, the liability to pay compensation, at best, must be
      determined in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
B     1988. The High Court in the present case overturned the finding
      recorded by the Tribunal that the motorcycle was driven by
      appellant No.2 at the relevant time when the accident occurred
      and, instead, concluded that the motorcycle was, in fact, driven
      by deceased. In that sense, the accident occurred neither due to
C     the fault of the owner of the vehicle (appellant No.1) who,
      admittedly, was not present or travelling on the motorcycle at
      the relevant time nor due to the fault of any other vehicle.
      However, on a deeper scrutiny it is found that the High Court
      committed manifest error, an error apparent on the face of the
      record, in reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
D     motorcycle was being driven by appellant No.2 (son of appellant
      No.1 – owner of the motorcycle) and had caused accident due to
      rash and negligent driving. Though, the respondents–claimants
      have neither come up in cross appeal against the reduction of
      the compensation amount on the finding of contributory
E     negligence nor have they filed any cross objection regarding
      reversing of the crucial finding of fact by the High Court.
      However, it is well settled that in motor accident claim cases, the
      Court cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach but has to
      discharge the role of parens patriae. [Para 8][515-C-G]

F           1.2 The respondents, through their witnesses established
      that the motorcycle was owned by appellant No.1 and appellant
      No.2 used to drive that motorcycle himself. The appellants did
      not even produce any title of evidence, except the bare words of
      the appellants and their witnesses (DW-2) and (DW-3) who were
G     obviously interested witnesses. The view taken by the Tribunal
      was not only a possible view but also in conformity with the scale
      to be applied for appreciation of evidence in motor accident cases
      namely preponderance of probabilities. [Paras 9, 11][516-E-F;
      518-D]

H
     MOHAR SAI AND ANR. v. GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.                        511


      1.3 The entirety of evidence was not analysed by the High         A
Court, including the material evidence of witnesses who had seen
appellant No.2 driving the motorcycle and deceased sitting behind
him as pillion rider. The High Court, however, selectively relied
on the statements of interested witnesses examined on behalf of
the appellants. The eye witnesses examined by the claimants were
                                                                        B
neither discarded as untruthful nor did the High Court found any
contradiction in the version given by them. Their version
remained unshaken during the cross-examination. As such, the
High Court committed manifest error in reversing the finding of
fact recorded by the Tribunal by solely relying on the version of
interested witnesses examined by the appellants in defence. On          C
the other hand, the analysis of the totality of evidence by the
Tribunal is consistent with the principle of preponderance of
probabilities. [Para 12][519-C, E, G-H; 520-A]
      1.4 Once this finding of the High Court becomes doubtful,
the principal argument of the appellants fail, in which case the        D
question of applying Section 140 of the Act does not arise. There
is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
motorcycle was driven by appellant No.2 at the relevant time and
had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving
resulting in injuries to all the three persons travelling on the
motorcycle, including the deceased who succumbed to the                 E
injuries before being admitted in the Hospital. No serious
argument was made about the quantum of compensation
determined by the High Court providing for future prospects and
deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, including applying
the multiplier of 16. Even if any argument in that behalf was           F
available to the appellants, as the amount involved is
insignificant and the difference between the quantum determined
by the Tribunal and the quantum determined by the High Court
is only marginal (the Tribunal determined Rs.3,85,000/- and the
High Court determined Rs.3,86,500/-), interference in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is declined.      G
At the same time, it is clarified that the justness of the finding of
the High Court regarding contributory negligence against the
deceased and providing for deduction of 50% compensation
amount therefor, has not been examined as the respondents did
                                                                        H
512            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     not assail that part of the finding of the High Court. [Para 13][520-
      B-F]
             1.5 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no
      interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is warranted.
      [Para 14][520-G]
B            A. Sridhar v. United India Insurance Company Limited
             and Anr. (2011) 14 SCC 719 : [2011] 11 SCR 386 –
             held inapplicable.
                                Case Law Reference
             [2011] 11 SCR 386          held inapplicable         Para 6
C            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8411
      of 2015.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2015 of the High Court
      of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1100 of 2011.
             Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. for the Appellants.
D            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave,
      emanates from the judgment and order dated 1st April, 2015 passed by
      the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Misc. Appeal (C) No.1100
      of 2011, partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellants herein (owner
E     and driver of the offending vehicle) against the award passed by the
      Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koriya, Baikunthpur, Chhatisgarh
      (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in Claim Case No.22/2008
      dated 21st September, 2011, on the finding that the deceased was liable
      for contributory negligence to the extent of 50% and as such, after
      deducting 50% of the compensation amount, the respondents/claimants
F     would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3,86,500/- along with interest at the rate
      of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
      date of realization.
             2. Briefly stated, the respondents claiming to be the heirs and
      legal representatives of the deceased Krishna Kumar Sahu alias Tipu
G     Sahu, son of Dashrath Sahu, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal
      under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”)
      for compensation, amounting to Rs.20,21,000/- on account of the death
      of Krishna Kumar Sahu in a motor accident which occurred on 14th
      November, 2006. Respondent No.1 is the widow of deceased Krishna
      Kumar Sahu. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the minor children of the
H
     MOHAR SAI AND ANR. v. GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.                                  513
                [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

deceased and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are the parents of the deceased.               A
They asserted that when Krishna Kumar was in his Pan Shop near the
bus stand of Village Kathghor, appellant No.2 Prem Lal Rajawade came
to his shop on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 16C/5171
with a friend, Narendra Panika, at around 1.00 P.M. and cajoled Krishna
Kumar to accompany him to Village Belia. All the three left for Village
                                                                                  B
Belia on the motorcycle. While returning back from Belia, when they
reached Khaad Naala, the motorcycle skidded due to high speed as the
driver lost control over it. Consequently, all the three persons travelling
on the motorcycle were injured. The motorcycle was driven by Prem
Lal all along. They were given first aid at Government Hospital, Sonhat
and then referred to Charcha Regional Hospital for further treatment.             C
Krishna Kumar died en-route to Charcha Hospital. In this background,
the claim petition was filed, which was resisted by the appellants.
       3. Admittedly, appellant No.1 is the owner of the offending
vehicle and appellant No.2 is the son of appellant No.1 who went along
with the deceased on the offending motorcycle on the date of accident.            D
According to the appellants, however, the motorcycle was being driven
by Krishna Kumar and not appellant No.2, as alleged, when the accident
took place. Appellant No.2 was sitting in the middle and Narendra Panika
was sitting at the back, as pillion riders. Krishna Kumar was driving the
motorcycle rashly and at a high speed. He was told to slow down but he
did not pay any heed to it and eventually the accident was caused. In             E
other words, the deceased Krishna Kumar was himself responsible for
the accident.
       4. In light of the competing claims of the parties, the Tribunal framed
four issues and finally answered the claim petition in favour of the
claimants. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the claimants that the               F
offending vehicle (motorcycle) was driven by Prem Lal (appellant No.2)
at the relevant time and had caused the accident due to rash and
negligent driving. The Tribunal then determined the quantum of
compensation amount on the basis of monthly income of the deceased
estimated at Rs.3,000/- and applied multiplier of 15. Besides, the Tribunal       G
awarded lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses,
loss of love and affection due to the death of the deceased. The Tribunal
determined the compensation amount at Rs.3,85,000/- to be paid with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition until its realization. The appellants assailed the said decision
                                                                                  H
514                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     of the Tribunal by way of First Appeal before the High Court of
      Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.
             5. The High Court reversed the finding of fact recorded by the
      Tribunal that the offending vehicle (motorcycle) was driven by Prem
      Lal (appellant No.2) at the relevant time and instead found that the
B     deceased himself was driving the motorcycle and had caused the accident.
      On that finding, the High Court proceeded to hold that being a case of
      contributory negligence, the claimants would be entitled to only 50% of
      the compensation amount to be determined by it. With regard to the
      quantum of compensation amount, the High Court opined that the Tribunal
      failed to provide for addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased
C     towards future prospects and also deduction of 1/4th of the income,
      instead of 1/3rd. Further, the amount awarded towards funeral expenses
      and loss of consortium for the wife and loss of love and affection
      towards the children and parents, was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. On
      that basis, the High Court opined that the total compensation amount
D     payable would have been Rs.7,73,000/-, but after deduction of 50% of
      that amount towards contributory negligence, the amount actually
      payable to the respondents – claimants would work out to Rs.3,86,500/-
      with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
      claim petition till the date of realization. This decision is the subject
      matter of the present appeal at the instance of the appellants
E     (owner/driver of the motorcycle).
             6. The foremost contention in this appeal is that the High Court
      having concluded that appellant No.2 was not driving the motorcycle at
      the relevant time and applying the exposition in the case of A. Sridhar
      Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,1 the claimants
F     at best would be entitled to compensation on ‘no fault liability principle’
      under Section 140 of the Act, for it was a case of accident not because
      of fault of owner of the vehicle or because of the fault of any other
      vehicle. It is urged that no liability can be fastened on the appellants for
      the negligence of the deceased, much less on the pillion riders. It is also
G     urged that the appellants come from a very humble background and are
      engaged in ordinary agricultural labour work. They will not be in a position
      to pay any compensation amount, if awarded. It is also contended that
      there was no relationship of master and servant, principal/employer and
      employee between the deceased and the appellants which alone could
      1
H         (2011) 14 SCC 719
     MOHAR SAI AND ANR. v. GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.                                 515
                [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

have been the basis for awarding compensation, much less fasten liability        A
on the appellants to pay such amount on the principle of vicarious liability.
It is submitted by the appellants that the High Court’s decision of fastening
the liability on the appellants of Rs.3,86,500/-, with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum, deserves to be set aside and the appellants ought to be
absolved from any liability. Alternatively, it is submitted that the
                                                                                 B
compensation amount be determined under Section 140 of the Act and
not under Section 166 of the Act.
      7. Although notice has been served on the respondents, no
appearance has been entered on their behalf. As a result, the hearing of
this appeal had to proceed ex-parte against them. We have heard
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellants, at length.              C

       8. The appellants may be right in contending that in cases where
the accident occurs without any fault of the owner of the vehicle or the
fault of the other vehicle, the liability to pay compensation, at best, must
be determined in terms of Section 140 of the Act as has been held in A.
Sridhar (supra). It is true that the High Court in the present case has          D
overturned the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the motorcycle was
driven by appellant No.2 at the relevant time when the accident
occurred and, instead, concluded that the motorcycle was, in fact, driven
by deceased Krishna Kumar. In that sense, the accident occurred
neither due to the fault of the owner of the vehicle (appellant No.1) who,       E
admittedly, was not present or travelling on the motorcycle at the
relevant time nor due to the fault of any other vehicle. However, on a
deeper scrutiny of the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the
High Court committed manifest error, an error apparent on the face of
the record, in reversing the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
motorcycle was being driven by appellant No.2 (son of appellant No.1 –           F
owner of the motorcycle) and had caused accident due to rash and
negligent driving. We are conscious of the fact that the respondents –
claimants have neither come up in cross appeal against the reduction of
the compensation amount on the finding of contributory negligence nor
have they filed any cross objection regarding reversing of the crucial           G
finding of fact by the High Court. However, it is well settled that in
motor accident claim cases, the Court cannot adopt a hyper-technical
approach but has to discharge the role of parens patriae. This appeal
being continuation of the claim petition albeit at the instance of the owner

                                                                                 H
516            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     (appellant No.1)/alleged driver of the vehicle (appellant No.2), we
      consider it appropriate to examine the approach of the High Court in
      reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of
      motorcycle being driven by Prem Lal (appellant No.2, son of appellant
      No.1 owner of the motorcycle) at the relevant time and also that he had
      caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving. We are inclined to
B
      do so as it is open to the respondents to support the decree whilst urging
      that the finding against them recorded by the High Court on the matter
      in issue ought to have been in their favour as has been held by the
      Tribunal.
            9. The respondents, in support of their claim that the deceased
C     Krishna Kumar travelled as pillion rider and was sitting in the middle,
      between the two other persons who were travelling together on the
      motorcycle, had examined witnesses who spoke about the fact that Prem
      Lal along with Narendra Panika came to the Pan Shop of deceased
      Krishna Kumar and cajoled him to accompany them to Village Belia.
D     Krishna Kumar agreed to go with Prem Lal and when he left his Pan
      shop, the vehicle was being driven by Prem Lal (appellant No.2). The
      witnesses have also unambiguously mentioned that when they reached
      Village Belia and left from that Village, Prem Lal was driving the
      motorcycle and Krishna Kumar was sitting in the middle and Narendra
      Panika behind him. The witness Jawahar Lal (AW-5), has also stated
E     that while he was going to Sonhat from Baikunthpur in a jeep, he saw
      Krishna Kumar going with his friends on a motorcycle and sitting in the
      middle. Few minutes thereafter, the accident occurred. The respondents,
      through their witnesses, have also established that the motorcycle was
      owned by appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 used to drive that motorcycle
F     himself. The appellants did not even produce any tittle of evidence, except
      the bare words of the appellants and their witnesses Narendra Panika
      (DW-2) and Jai Prakash (DW-3) who are obviously interested witnesses.
      Taking the entirety of the evidence on record, the Tribunal in paragraphs
      17 and 18 of its judgment observed thus:
G           “17. Examining the witnesses Gayagtri (AW-1), Rajkumar (AW-2),
            Sanjay Pratap Singh (AW-3), Bhagwat Prasad (AW-4), Jawahar
            Lal (AW-5), Sandeep Kuma (AW-6) and the documents exhibited
            it was found that on 14.11.2006 near the Khad Naala near village
            Kailashpur motorcycle no.CG 16C/5171 met with an accident,
            and the riders of the motorcycle Premlal, Narendra Panika, and
H
     MOHAR SAI AND ANR. v. GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.                           517
                [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

      Krishna Kumar were injured. Krishna Kumar was seriously injured      A
      and therefore, he died while being taken to Charcha hospital.
      18. From the statement of applicant no.1 Smt. Gayatri Devi and
      the Criminal Complaint no.39/08 before the Chief Judicial
      Magistrate, Baikunthpur, prima facie case against Premlal Rajwade
      under section 279, 304A of IPC has been registered on the basis      B
      of the witnesses and documents and the matter is pending before
      the court. These facts have stood the test of cross-examination.”
      10. Again, in paragraphs 22-24, the Tribunal negatived the plea of
the appellants being far-fetched and accepted the version of the
respondents – claimants that the motorcycle at the relevant time was       C
being driven by Prem Lal (appellant No.2) and he had caused the accident
due to rash and negligent driving. Paragraphs 22-24 read thus:
      “22. On the basis of the above mentioned statements of the
      Defendant Premlal (DW-1), Witness Narendra Panika (DW-2),
      and Jayprakash (DW-3) the claim of applicants that Krishna Kumar     D
      died in a motorcycle accident is proved.
      23. The defence of the defendants is that on the said date the
      motorcycle was being driven by deceased Krishna Kumar.
      Defendant witness Premlal (DW-1), Narendra Kumar (DW-2),
      and Jayprakash (DW-3) in their chief examination have stated         E
      that while going back from Kailashpur the said vehicle was being
      driven by Krishna Kumar. Krishna Kumar was driving the
      motorcycle in high speed and negligent manner, due to which he
      was not able to control the vehicle and accident was caused.
      Witness Premlal (DW-1) has refuted the claim of the applicants
      in his cross examination and has stated that deceased Krishna        F
      Kumar knew how to drive all kinds of vehicles. But he has
      conceded of not having any knowledge whether Krishna Kumar
      had any driving licence or not. This witness has stated that the
      deceased had scooter for himself. However, the defendants have
      not been able to produce any reliable evidence as to the ownership   G
      of the said scooter and neither any valid licence to prove that
      Krishna Kumar had a license to drive to vehicles. Narendra Panika
      (SW-2) has also not produced any documents relating to the vehicle
      of the deceased neither relating to the driving license of the
      deceased. Witness Jayprakash (DW-3) has admitted that he did
                                                                           H
518            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           not see the accident happening. In this situation, the burden of
            proof is on the defendants to prove that deceased had a valid
            driving licence and that he was the one who was driving the
            motorcycle. The defendants have failed to produce any reliable
            evidence in this regard. The vehicle involved in accident CG-16/
            C5171 is owned by Mohar Sai and it was regularly driven by
B
            Premlal (Defendant no.2), if he or his father (defendant no.2 and
            1) had allowed deceased Krishna Kumar, so both of them are
            definitely liable for the accident, because without finding out
            whether the deceased had a valid driving license, the defendants
            allowed him to drive the motorcycle.
C           24. Therefore, on the basis of the above evidence it is decided
            that on question no.1 and 2 the applicants have been able to
            successfully prove against the defendants. On the other had the
            defendants have not been able to prove their case on question
            no.2. Therefore, the question no.1 is adjudicated as Yes and
D           question no.2 is adjudicated as No.”
             11. The view so taken by the Tribunal, it appears to us, was not
      only a possible view but also in conformity with the scale to be applied
      for appreciation of evidence in motor accident cases namely
      preponderance of probabilities. Nevertheless, the High Court reversed
E     this well considered finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal by merely
      observing thus:
            “11. After evaluating the evidence of witnesses, it would reveal
            that the Applicant had examined the eye witness Sanjay Pratap
            Singh as A.W.3, but he has stated in cross examination that he
F           has not seen the incident and reached the spot after the accident
            had happened. Similarly, witness Bhagwat Prasad only says about
            the fact that before the occurrence of accident, the vehicle was
            driven by Premlal. Another witness Jawharlal Sahu has stated in
            his cross examination that he has not seen the incident. Therefore,
            taking into statements of witnesses alongwith FIR wherein it is
G           stated that at the relevant time, the vehicle was being driven by
            the deceased himself appears to be more plausible. Ex.D-4 is a
            document of MLC of two persons, which is an intimation sent by
            Doctor Ex.D-4 purports that the doctor intimated the police about
            the injured persons and it contains the statement that 3 persons
H           were travelling in the motorcycle and the driver of the motorcycle
     MOHAR SAI AND ANR. v. GAYATRI DEVI AND ORS.                               519
                [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

      had died. This was sent on 14.11.2006 at about 11.45 p.m., that is       A
      the date of accident and immediately after the incident happened.
      Reading it alongwith the statements of pillion riders who were
      also travelling on the motorcycle would clearly go to show that
      that at the relevant time, the vehicle was being driven by the
      deceased Krishna Kumar Rajwade itself.
                                                                               B
      12. So taking into account the facts which have emerged from
      evidence and documents on record, I am of the opinion that the
      finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that at the relevant time the
      vehicle was being driven by Premlal Rajwade appears to be not
      sustainable and is set aside. Accordingly, it is held that deceased
      was also liable for contributory negligence for the accident.”           C

       12. The entirety of evidence has not been analysed by the High
Court, including the material evidence of witnesses who had seen Prem
Lal (appellant No.2) driving the motorcycle and deceased Krishna Kumar
sitting behind him as pillion rider, whilst leaving his Pan shop and when
they reached Village Belia and again, when they left that village, including   D
having been seen by Jawahar Lal (AW-5) on the way just before the
occurrence of the accident. The High Court has not discarded the
version of the claimants’ witnesses as untruthful. Besides the oral
evidence adduced by the claimants, the Tribunal also took note of the
police papers in respect of the Criminal Complaint No.39/08 filed before       E
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, for offence punishable under
Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and the statement of
the witnesses referred to therein. The High Court, however, selectively
relied on the statements of interested witnesses examined on behalf of
the appellants and Exh. D-4 and Exh. D-5. Exh. D-4 is a document of
MLC of Narendra Panika who presumably gave intimation that Krishna             F
Kumar was seriously injured and that he succumbed to injuries before
he could be shifted to the hospital. The version given to the doctor by
appellant no.2 and Narendra Panika was unilateral and not verified from
independent eye witnesses before recording the same. Exh.D-5 was
similarly founded on the intimation given by the two injured persons who       G
obviously did not reveal the correct position for reasons best known to
them. Notably, the eye witnesses examined by the claimants have neither
been discarded as untruthful nor has the High Court found any
contradiction in the version given by them. Their version remained
unshaken during the cross-examination. As such, the High Court
                                                                               H
520             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     committed manifest error in reversing the finding of fact recorded by
      the Tribunal by solely relying on the version of interested witnesses
      examined by the appellants in defence. On the other hand, the analysis
      of the totality of evidence by the Tribunal is consistent with the principle
      of preponderance of probabilities.
B            13. Once this finding of the High Court becomes doubtful, the
      principal argument of the appellants must fail, in which case the question
      of applying Section 140 of the Act does not arise. For the same reason,
      the exposition in the case of A. Sridhar (supra), will be of no avail to the
      appellants. In other words, we find no infirmity in the finding recorded
      by the Tribunal that the motorcycle was driven by Prem Lal (appellant
C     No.2) at the relevant time and had caused the accident due to rash and
      negligent driving resulting in injuries to all the three persons travelling on
      the motorcycle, including the deceased Krishna Kumar who succumbed
      to the injuries before being admitted in Charcha Hospital. No serious
      argument has been made about the quantum of compensation
D     determined by the High Court providing for future prospects and
      deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, including applying the
      multiplier of 16. Even if any argument in that behalf is available to the
      appellants, as the amount involved is insignificant and the difference
      between the quantum determined by the Tribunal and the quantum
      determined by the High Court is only marginal (the Tribunal determined
E     Rs.3,85,000/- and the High Court determined Rs.3,86,500/-), we decline
      to interfere in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
      Constitution. At the same time, we must clarify that we have not
      examined the justness of the finding of the High Court regarding
      contributory negligence against the deceased and providing for
F     deduction of 50% compensation amount therefor. For, the respondents
      have not assailed that part of the finding of the High Court.
             14. Taking overall view of the matter, we have no hesitation in
      concluding that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no
      interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is warranted. Hence,
G     this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.


      Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal dismissed.



H