MINU B. MEHTA AND ANOTHER versus BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA NAYAN AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 28-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
B 
E 
F 
886 
MINU B. MEHTA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA NAYAN AND ANOTHER 
January 28, 1977 
[A. N. RAY, C. J., M. H. BEG AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 95(v)(b)(i) and (ii)-Scope of -Claim for 
compensation in motor vehicle accidents-Proof of negligence of drilf15r-lf 
necessary. 
Torts-Claim for compensation in motor vehicle accidents-Proof of negli-
gence of drriver-lf necessary. 
While the respondent was travelling in his car, the appellant's truck, driven 
by a driver, hit the car and caused injuries to the respondent and damaged the 
car. 
The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the respondent, and the 
High Court upheld the Tribunal's award. 
In the course of the judgment the 
High Court, however, observed that every person has a right to security and 
safety of his person irrespective of the fault or negligence or carelmsness and 
that every person hlli> a right to claim compensation. irrespective of proof of 
negligence on the part of the driver. 
It further observed that the perimeters 
of liability in els. (i) and (ii) of s. 95(i)(b) must be held to he the same 
because in both, the liability of the owner of the driver exists and is made com-
pulsorily insurable and that it could not be said that the legislature intended 
absolute liability in cases covered by cl. (ii) and not in cases 
covered 
by 
cl. (i). 
HELD : Proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurer 
could be held liable for payment of compensation in motor vehicle accident 
claims. 
The High Court's views are opposed to basic principles of the owner's 
liability for negligence of his servant and are based on a compkte misreading 
of the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act. [900 Fl 
1. Before a person can be made liable to 
pay 
compensation 
flilr 
any 
injuries and damage caused by ms action. it is necessary 
tha> 
the· 
perso'Il 
injured should be able to establish that he has some cause of action 
against 
the party responsible. 
In order to succeed in an action for 
negligence 
the 
plantiff must prove ( 1) that the defendanb had, in the circumstances, a duty 
to take care and that duty was owed by him to the plaintiff 
and (2) 
that 
there was a breach of that dut<y and that as a result of the breach 
damage 
was suffered by the plaintiff. 
The master also becomes liable for the conduct 
of the servant when the servant is proved to have acted negligently 
in 
the 
course of his employment. f895 C-Dl 
~ 
2(a) The puri:ose of making i'Ilsurance compulsory 
is 
to 
protect 
the 
interests of the successful claimant from being defeated by the owner of the 
vehicle who has not enough means to meet his liability. 
The1 safeguard 
is 
provided· by imposing certain statutory duties, namely, the duty not to drive 
or permit a car to be driven unless 
the car is 
covered 
by 
third 
party 
insurance. f895 Fl 
(b) Under s. 95(1) (b )(i) of the Act, the policy of insurance must be a 
i:nlicy which insures against any liability which may be incurred 
in 
resp~c' 
of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third 
party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. The 
accident to which the owner or the person insuring is liable is to the extent of 
his liability in respect of death or bodily injury and that liability is covered by 
the insurance. It is. therefore, obvious that if the owner has not incurred any 
liab;lity in respect of death or bodily injury to any person there is no liability 
and it is not intended to be covered by the insurance. The liability contem-
plated arises under the law of negligence and under the principle of _vicarious 
liability. 
The provisions of the section do not make the owner or the rnsurance 
compa.ny Iia·bk for any bodily iniurv caused to a third party arising out of the 
use of the vehicle unless the liability can be fastened on him. [896 D-F] 
MINU B. MEHTA v. B. R. NAYAN (Kailasam, J.)_ 
887 
(c) Under sub-cl. (ii) of s. 95(1)(b) of the Act the policy of insurance must 
insure a person against death or bodily injury to any passenger of a 
public 
service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public 
place. 
So far as the bodily injury caused to a passenger is concerned it need 
not 
be due 
to 
any 
act 
or liability 
incurred 
by 
the 
person. The 
expression "liability which may be incurred by him" in sub.-cl. (i) is meant to 
cover any liability aris

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.