Shivanshu Singh

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

A PROJECT SUBMITTED ON

CASE STUDY: - M.P. State Road Transport Corporation

and Ors.Vs. Abdul Rahman and Ors.AIR 1997 MADHYA
PRADESH 248

SHIVANSHU SINGH
BA. LLB (HONS.)
2nd SEM
ROLL NO 141

TORTS Page 1
Shivanshu Singh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

For the completion of my work, I would like to thank my subject teacher for such an interesting
topic and his continuous support and guidance in making my work better .
I would also like to thank my fellow mates for providing me with different point of views
regarding the project which helped me to a very large extent in compiling my assignment.
Without these people my project would not have been able to see the light of the day.
Thank you
Shivanshu Singh
Roll no. 141

TORTS Page 2
Shivanshu Singh

TABLE OF CONTENTS
HONARABLE JUDGES
FACTS OF THE CASE
ISSUE OF THE CASE
ARUGUEMENTS
APPELENT SIDE
RESPONDENT
RATIO DECENDII
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
CASES REFFERED
BIBLIOGRAPHY

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study is empirical one and qualitative in approach. It has equally focused on qualitative
methods of research. Apart from Primary data, Secondary and published documented data has also been
collected through various sources and analyzed accordingly.
To make the study more meaningful and policy oriented available literature and studies have been
consulted and reviewed apart from this field observations and open ended discussion have also been
equally considered and incorporated in the present study. The filled in questionnaires were thoroughly

TORTS Page 3
Shivanshu Singh

scrutinized and processed in computer for drawing out inferences, patterns, trends and conclusions. The
secondary data interpreted and analyzed while critical appreciation of pertinent literature has been
ensured in the project wherever required.
Books and other reference as guided by Faculty of Law have been primarily helpful in giving this project
a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred.

LIMITATION OF THE PROJECT

The project fails to conduct a primary research thorough examination, interviews and surveys
due to lack of time and vague understanding. The research of the project limits to book and
internet content.

M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs.Abdul Rahman and Ors
AIR 1997 MADHYA PRADESH 248

HON'BLE JUDGES:-

S.K. Dubey

Dipak Misra, JJ.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

In the case, M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Abdul Rahmanthere was an accident of a motor cyclist
carrying a grown up person and a child of four years on the pillion, with a bus, which resulted in
the death of all the three persons riding the motor cycle. Regarding compensation for the death of
a child, it was held that in his case full compensation was payable as the child could not be
deemed to be guilty of contributory negligence.

In this case there was found to be no evidence that the grown up person and the child had in any
way contributed to the causing of the accident. The claim of the legal representatives of these
pillion riders was not affected by the plea of contributory negligence.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:-

TORTS Page 4
Shivanshu Singh

Whether the child will be made liable under contributory negligence?

Whether the accident was due to the contributory negligence or composite negligence?

To what amount of compensation if any, the respondent is entitled to?

ARGUMENTS

APPELLANTS SIDE-

It was urged that there was contributory negligence by the deceased persons and,
therefore, the Corporation should not have been saddled with the liability. He has also
canvassed that the finding of the Tribunal is, in fact, contributory negligence on the part
of both the drivers though he has proceeded on the assumption of composite negligence.

It was seriously contended that the deceased persons suffered their late because of their
contributory negligence in as much as they accompanied the rash and negligent rider.

RESPONDENTS SIDE

The award has put forth that the question of contributory negligence is not attracted in a
case of child of four years, the grown up is concerned, he was not at the wheel and,
therefore, he cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence. It is further
submitted by him that as the Tribunal has recorded a finding that due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Bus as well as the Motorcycle the accident had
occurred, the question of Contributory negligence of the child and the other deceased
does not arise, and the finding of the Tribunal should not be interfered with as the same
has been based on proper appreciation of materials on record.

DECISION OF THE COURT

TORTS Page 5
Shivanshu Singh

The court dismissed the appeal without any costs (no order as to costs).

Relating to contributory negligence on the part of a child of tender age there is no doubt
that the concept of contributory negligence cannot be made applicable to a child. A child
functions according to his own reasoning and his intelligence. Logicality and rationality
are not expected from a child as a child of tender age has no continuous thinking process
and is governed by his impulse, instinct and innocence.It was held that Riyaz, the child of
four, was not liable for contributory negligence.

It was held that the apportionment of liability should not have been done by the Tribunal
and each of the tort-feasors should have been held jointly and severally liable(the
appellant as well as the owner of Motorcycle).

RATIO DECIDENDI

A child functions according to his own reasoning and his intelligence. Logicality and
rationality are not expected from a child as a child of tender age has no continuous
thinking process and is governed by his impulse, instinct and innocence therfore the
concept of contributory negligence cannot be made applicable to a child

In cases of composite negligence, liability cannot be apportioned, and the joint tort-
feasors are jointly and severally liable".

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

168. Award of the Claims Tribunal. (1) On receipt of anapplication for compensation made
under section 166, the Claims Tribunalshall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer
and after giving theparties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an
inquiryinto the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to theprovisions of

TORTS Page 6
Shivanshu Singh

section 162 may make an award determining the amount ofcompensation which appears to it to
be just and specifying the person orpersons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making
the award theClaims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer
orowner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any ofthem, as the case may
be :
Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensationunder section 140 in
respect of the death or permanent disablement of anyperson, such claim and any other claim
(whether made in such application orotherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or
permanent disablementshall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claim Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the awardto the parties concerned
expeditiously and in any case within a period offifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who isrequired to pay any amount in
terms of such award shall, within thirty days ofthe date of announcing the award by the Claims
Tribunal, deposit the entireamount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
Corresponding Law. Section 168 corresponds to section 110-B of theMotor Vehicles Act,
1939.
Objects and Reasons. Clause 168 provides that the Claims Tribunalshall deliver the copies of
the award to the parties within fifteen days of theaward and that the person against whom the
award is made shall deposit theamount awarded within thirty days of announcement of the
award.

Compensation in case of accident due to composite negligence of drivers of two

vehicles-

Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or legal representatives of the deceased due to
injury arising out of use of motor vehicles due to the composite negligence of drivers of the two
vehicles the claimant can recover compensation from any one of the joint tort- feasors and the
just compensation to which he is entitled cannot be reduced for non-impleading of the other joint
tort- feasors.

CASES REFERRED:-

Gough v. Thorne, 1967 Acc CJ 183

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas

Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjusri Raha 1968 MPLJ 302

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Websites Referred:
www.jgenerator.com

TORTS Page 7
Shivanshu Singh

www.economictimes.com
www.eastasiaforum.org
www.epw.in
www.merinews.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.lawlex.org
www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
www.indialawyers.wordpress.com

Newspapers referred
The Hindu
The Times of India
Economic Times

TORTS Page 8