Uttarakhand High Court
Regional Manager vs Sohan Lal And Another on 10 January, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on: 17.12.2025
Judgment delivered on: 10.01.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.299 of 2015
Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation
and Another .........Appellants
Versus
Sohan Lal and Another .........Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for appellants-Corporation. Mr. Zafar Siddique, learned counsel for respondent/claimant.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) This Appeal from Order has been preferred by appellants-Corporation, Pithoragarh, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), assailing the judgment and award dated 01.04.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, in M.A.C.P. No.16 of 2014 Sohan Lal Vs. Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Others, whereby, claim petition filed by the respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Act was allowed and appellants-Corporation was held liable to pay compensation to respondent-claimant along with interest.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent-claimant, aged about 38 years at the time of the accident, was travelling on 17.06.2013 in a bus bearing registration no.UK-07-PA-1440 belonging to Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. The respondent-
claimant alleged that when the bus reached near Kasan Bend on Sheraghat Road within the limits of Police Station Kotwali, Almora, at about 08:00 a.m., the bus met with an accident due to rash and negligence of its driver and parking it at an unsafe place on a hilly road. Owing to 1 heavy rainfall and cloudburst, the bus was allegedly engulfed by a deluge and swept away, resulting in grievous injuries to him. It was pleaded that respondent-claimant sustained severe spinal injuries leading to permanent disability, and despite treatment at various hospitals including Almora, Delhi and other medical institutions, he became 90% disabled and lost his earning capacity permanently.
3. The respondent-claimant further pleaded that prior to the accident he was working as a driver-cum-cook at Delhi and was earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in accident, he became paraplegic, could not continue his profession, and became fully dependent upon others for his livelihood. The claim petition sought compensation under various heads including loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and transportation expenses.
4. Appellants-Corporation filed its written statement denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It was pleaded that the accident did not occur due to any fault on the part of driver rather it was an 'act of God'. According to appellants-Corporation, due to sudden cloudburst and heavy rainfall, a deluge occurred and the bus was swept away. It was asserted that the driver had parked bus at a safe place on the request of passengers and had taken all reasonable precautions expected of a driver on a hilly road. Appellants-Corporation further pleaded that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time and that respondent- claimant had already been paid interim compensation and humanitarian assistance. The quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed as being excessive and exaggerated.
25. The driver of bus, arrayed as opposite party no.3, also filed his written statement supporting the stand of appellants-Corporation. He asserted that the accident occurred solely due to natural forces beyond human control and not due to rash or negligent driving. He stated that it was raining heavily, visibility was poor, and considering the safety of passengers, he had parked the bus at Kasan Bend. He denied that he had ignored any request of the passengers or that he had driven the bus negligently. He further asserted that he held a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:
1. Whether on 17.06.2013 at about 8.00 a.m., near Kasan Bend on Sheraghat Road, Almora, within the limits of Police Station Kotwali Almora, the claimant was travelling by offending vehicle No.UK-07-
PA-1440. Due to the negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, the accident occurred and the claimant sustained grievous injuries? If so, its effect?
2. Whether on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accident took place due to the act of God as contended by the O.P Nos. 1 ,2 and 3 in their written statement Paper No. 16 ka/1? If so, its effect?
3. Whether on the aforesaid date and time, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle with an effective and valid driving license?
4. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?
7. While dealing with Issue No.1, learned Tribunal examined the oral testimony of respondent-claimant as well as the driver of bus and perused the documentary evidence on record. Learned Tribunal noted that the accident occurred on a hilly road and that heavy rainfall was taking place at the relevant time. However, it was held that even under adverse weather conditions, a higher degree of care is expected from a driver of a public transport vehicle. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver had parked bus at an unsafe place near Kasan Bend and failed to anticipate the imminent danger. The plea that the vehicle was safely parked was not accepted, and learned Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to negligence 3 attributable to the driver of offending bus. Accordingly, Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the respondent- claimant.
8. While deciding Issue No.2, learned Tribunal considered the defense raised by appellants-Corporation and driver that the accident occurred due to 'an act of God' on account of sudden cloudburst and heavy rainfall. Learned Tribunal held that though natural forces were present, the same by itself would not absolve the driver of responsibility. It was observed that the driver had sufficient opportunity to take preventive measures and to park the vehicle at a safer place. Learned Tribunal further held that the doctrine of 'act of God' would apply only where the occurrence is beyond human foresight and control, which was not the case here. Consequently, learned Tribunal rejected the plea of 'act of God' and decided Issue No.2 against appellants-Corporation and driver.
9. With respect to Issue No.3, learned Tribunal examined the documentary evidence relating to the driving license of driver, including the copy of license produced on record. Learned Tribunal found that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. No evidence was led by appellants-Corporation to prove any violation of statutory provisions or policy conditions. Accordingly, Issue No.3 was decided in favour of respondent-claimant and against the appellants- Corporation.
10. While considering Issue No.4, learned Tribunal assessed the nature of injuries sustained by respondent- claimant, medical evidence including disability certificate, and testimony of doctor. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that respondent-claimant had suffered 90% permanent functional disability due to spinal injuries and had become paraplegic, rendering him incapable of 4 continuing his profession. The income of respondent- claimant was assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled driver, future prospects were added, and the multiplier of 15 was applied considering the age of respondent-claimant. Compensation was awarded under various heads including loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and transportation. Total compensation was quantified at Rs.27,04,392/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition and appellants-Corporation was held liable to satisfy the award.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings and material evidence placed on record carefully, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted with the findings recorded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal either on the issue of liability or on the question of quantum of compensation.
12. Learned Tribunal has rightly held that the driver failed to exercise the degree of care expected of a person operating a public transport vehicle on such a terrain. Prudence demanded that the bus be halted at a reasonably safe distance from the obstruction, keeping in mind the foreseeable risk of further falling trees or landslides. The decision to stop the bus in close proximity to danger zone materially exposed passengers to risk and directly contributed to the fatal outcome. The accident, therefore, cannot be characterized as an inevitable consequence of natural forces alone.
13. The plea raised on behalf of appellants- Corporation that the incident was an "Act of God" is wholly misconceived. The defense of vis major is available only where the event is so extraordinary and unforeseeable that no amount of human care or foresight could have 5 prevented the harm. In present case, the terrain, weather conditions and vulnerability of the stretch were well known. Once human negligence intervenes, the shield of 'Act of God' stands diluted and becomes unavailable.
14. Even otherwise, the contention that accident did not arise out of the "use of the motor vehicle" is legally untenable. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 9, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal is not restricted to deciding claims arising solely out of negligence and that negligence is only one species of the causes of action. Hon'ble Supreme Court further recognized that in appropriate cases, liability may arise even on the principle of strict liability, provided the accident arises out of the use of a motor vehicle and results in death or bodily injury.
15. The expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" has been given a wide and purposive interpretation by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530, wherein, it has been held that the use of a motor vehicle does not cease merely because the vehicle is stationary and that the causal relationship between use of the vehicle and accident need not be immediate or direct, so long as a proximate and reasonable nexus exists. The scope of the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" stands conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530. The following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court are of direct relevance:
"26. These decisions indicate that the word "use", in the context of motor vehicles, has been construed in a wider sense to include the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary, being either parked on the road and when it is not in a position to move due to some breakdown or mechanical defect. Relying on the abovementioned decisions, the appellate bench of the High Court has held that the expression "use of a motor vehicle" in Section 92-A covers accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary. With reference to the facts of 6 the present case the learned Judges have observed that the tanker in question while proceeding along National Highway 4 (i.e. while in use) after colliding with a motor lorry was lying on the side and that it cannot be claimed that after the collision the use of the tanker had ceased only because it was disabled. We are in agreement with the said approach of the High Court. In our opinion, the word "use" has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck.
37. Was the accident involving explosion and fire in the petrol tanker connected with the use of tanker as a motor vehicle? In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this question must be answered in the affirmative. The High Court has found that the tanker in question was carrying petrol which is a highly combustible and volatile material and after the collision with the other motor vehicle the tanker had fallen on one of its sides on the sloping ground resulting in escape of highly inflammable petrol and that there was grave risk of explosion and fire from the petrol coming out of the tanker. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly concluded that the collision between the tanker and the other vehicle which had occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in the explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events and merely because there was interval of about four to four and half hours between the said collision and the explosion and fire in the tanker, it cannot be necessarily inferred that there was no causal relation between explosion and fire. In the circumstances, it must be held that the explosion and fire resulting in the injuries which led to the death of Deepak Uttam More was due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle viz. the petrol tanker No. MKL 7461."
16. Applying the above principles, it is evident that the bus was very much "in use" at the relevant time. It was engaged in passenger transport on a public road, had halted only temporarily due to an obstruction, and the presence and positioning of vehicle at the site formed an integral part of the chain of events leading to the fatal accident. The causal connection in the present case is clear, proximate and unbroken.
17. The view taken by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Sharlet Augustine v. K.K. Raveendran, AIR 1992 Kerala 346, and by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sulochana and others v. KSRTC, ILR 2003 KAR 4911, further reinforces the position that consequential events closely connected with the use of a motor vehicle fall squarely within the ambit of compensable accidents under the Act.
18. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded to respondent-claimant, this Court has carefully re-examined the computation undertaken by learned 7 Tribunal in the light of settled principles governing assessment of compensation in injury cases. Learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding, based on medical evidence and testimony of treating doctor, that respondent-claimant sustained grievous spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia and 90% permanent functional disability. The said finding has not been effectively challenged and is borne out from disability certificate and medical record placed on file. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the avocation of respondent-claimant, learned Tribunal was justified in treating the disability as having a near-total impact on his earning capacity.
19. In the absence of reliable documentary evidence regarding actual income, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of respondent-claimant on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker/driver at the relevant time. This approach is in consonance with settled law and cannot be faulted. To the said income, future prospects at the rate of 30% were added, keeping in view the age of respondent-claimant and reasonable expectation of advancement in earnings. This addition is neither speculative nor excessive.
20. Considering the age of respondent-claimant, learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15, which is fully consistent with the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and subsequently affirmed in the case of Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. On this basis, compensation towards loss of future earning capacity was calculated. In addition thereto, learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the heads of medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and transportation expenses. The amounts awarded under these heads are moderate and proportionate, particularly in view of lifelong disability suffered by 8 respondent-claimant, loss of independence, and permanent curtailment of normal enjoyment of life.
21. On an overall assessment, this Court finds that learned Tribunal has adopted a structured and judicious approach in computing compensation. The total compensation awarded, quantified at Rs.27,04,392/- along with interest, represents just and reasonable compensation having due regard to the evidence on record and the settled legal parameters. The computation does not suffer from any error of law, misapplication of multiplier, or grant of compensation under impermissible heads warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the findings of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on negligence, applicability of the Act, rejection of plea of 'Act of God', and computation of compensation, are well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and fully consistent with settled legal principles.
23. Accordingly, appeal filed by appellants- Corporation fails and is dismissed.
24. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the learned Trial Court for consignment.
25. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.01.2026 PN 9