LexSMT. KAUSHNUMA BEGUM AND ORS. versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SMT. KAUSHNUMA BEGUM AND ORS.
v.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
JANUARY 3, 2001
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act. 1988: Section 140.
;\/otor accide11t.1·-Compcnsotion-Clai111 for-Rule of Strict LiabiliZJ'-
C Applin1bility of-field: Is applicable.
Motor uccide11ts-Compensatio11-·Cfai111 for- "No Fault Liability" and
"Strief Liubi!izr" Distinction betwee11-Erplai11ed-Victim died due to bursting
of ji'ont zire of a jeep-No negligence ()f drirer-Compensation-E111it!e111e111
to-field· fren apart from "No Faull Liability" victim is entitled to get
D compensation
E
F
IVords and Phrases:
"No Faull Liability "-Meaning of-In the contexl of S.140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The appl'lhrnt's husband died due to the bursting of the front tyre of
a jeep dri1·en hy the respondent. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal
dismissed the claim for compensation on the ground that were was no
negligence on the part of the respondent. The High Court affirmed the
decision of the Tribunal, Hence this appeal.
The following question arose before this Court:-
Can a claim be maintained before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal
on the basis of Strict liability propounded in Rylands v. Fletcher, (1861-1873
G all England Reports I)?
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : I. Like any other common law principle, which is acceptable
to the country's jurisprudence, the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher can be
followed at least until any other new principle which excels the former can
H
8
I
.+
.Ji
--
-
KAUSHNUMA BEGUM v. NEW INDIA ASSU. CO.
9
be evolved. Hence, the Rule in claims for compensations made in respeCt of A
motor accidents has to be. adopted. ( 15-B(
M.C. Mehta v Union of India, (1987( I SCC 395; Charan Lal Sahu v.
Union of India. (1990( I SCC 613 and Union Carhide Corporation v. Union
of India, ( 1991( 4 SCC 584, followed.
Gujarat Stale Road Transport Co1porutio11 v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai,
11987( 3 sec 234, relied on.
B
Ryla11d1· v. Fletcher, (1861-1873) all England Reports I and Winfield
on Torts 15th Edn. P. 543, referred to.
C
2. The jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not
restricted to decide claims arising out of negligence in the use of motor
vehicles. Negligence is only one of the species of the cause of action for
making a claim for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the D
use of motor vehicles. There are other premises for such cause of action.
(12-DI
3. "No Fault Liability" envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 is distinguishable from the Rule of Strict Liability. In the former
the compensation amount is fixed and is payable even if any one of the E
exceptions to the Rule can be applied it is a statutory liability created,
without which the claiment should not get any amount under that count.
Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles
can be claimed under the common law even without the aid ofa statute. The
provisions of the MV Act permits that compensation paid under 'No Fault F
Liability' can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Therefore, these two are resting on two different premises. Therefore, even
apart from Section 140 of the MV Act, a victim in an accident, which
occurred while using a motor vehicle, is entitled to get compensation from
a Tribunal unless any one of the exceptions would apply. The Tribunal and
the High Court have, therefore, gone into error in divesting the claimants G
of the compensation payable to them. (15-C-El
General Manager, Kera/a State Road Transport Corpomtion v.
Susamma Thomas, ( 1994) 2 SCC 176; referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6 of2001. H
IO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[200 I] I S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.99 of the Allahabad High Court
in F.A. From O.No. 649 of 1995.
;.--
Sharve Singh and Sanjay Singh, (K.K. Gupta) (NP) for the Appellants.
Vivek Sharma and Ms. Nanita Sharma for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Can a claim be maintained before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
C ("Tribunal' for short) on the basis of strict liability propounded in Rylands v.
F/e!cher, ( 1861-1873 All England Reports I)? The Tribunal dismissed a claim
made before it solely on the ground that there was neither rashness nor
negligence in driving the vehicle and hence the driver has no liabilityExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.