LexUNION OF INDIA versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. OCTOBER 22, 1997 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 : Ss. 110(1) & 110 B (1988 Act ss. 165 & 168 (1) r!w Rule JOO (j) of Rules made under 1939 Act, and ss. 13(c) & A B J 3(d), Railways Act, 1890; Train-bus accident at unmanned level crossing- C Majority of bus passengers and driver killed, others injuried-Bus driver not familiar with territory-Train visible to him and passengers from a distance- No caution board or indication to show that road was cutting across railway line-No handrails, stiles, gates erected to alert passerby ; Claim against bus owner, insurance company and railways : Held : Bus driver was negligent • at common law in not stopping the vehicle to see, hear and find out if any D train was coming-That his negligence does not vicariously attach to passengers of that motor vehicle-That under the law of torts obligation of railways run concurrently under statute and under common law-That statutory duties under s. 13, Railways Act did not arise-That railways was negligent ·at common law on the neighbourhood principle in not taking cognizance of increased rail road traffic at that level crossing and not E converting it into a manned one with gates-That railways was under a duty of care-That its omission to provide appropriate safeguards at the level crossing was irrational on the doctrine of general expectation of the community-That there is a clear indication in ss. 13(c) and 13(d) of Railways Act that affected parties are intended to be compensated-Thus creating a F private law cause of action against railways for damages-And that Claims Tribunal was competent to award damages against railways. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 : Ss. 110(1) & I JOB (1988 Act ss. 165 & 168(1)) rlw ss. J JOF & I JOE : Train-bus accident at unmanned level crossing-Claim for damages : Held: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is an G alternative forum in substitution of civil court-That it has jurisdiction to entertain claims against another joint tort feasor connected with same accident-And that it can pass award against railways for negligence in relation to same accident. Further, where bus driver is not negligent or vehicle had no defect the case goes out of s. I 10(1) and becomes one of H • 643 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A exclusive negligence of railways, and not maintainable before Tribunal. Railways Act, 1890: Ss. 13(c) & 13(d) : Statutory interpretation of: Held : There is clear indication in them,that affected parties ore intended to be compensated B Section 13 of the Railways Act, 1890 empowers the Central Government to require the railway administration, for the purpose of preventing danger to passengers on the road, to erect, within a specified time (a) boundary marks or fences, (b) screens, (c) suitable gates, chains, bars, stiles or handrails at places where a railway line crosses a public road on the level, and (d) that persons be employed to open and shut such gates, chains or bars. Section C 110 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides for constituting the Claims Tribunals for adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents, involving the death or bodily injury of persons, arising out of the use of motor-vehicles or damage of any property of a third party so arising or both. Section HOB of that Act empowers the Tribunal to determine the amount D of compensation and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid, and also to specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. Clause (f) of Rule 100 of the Rules made by the Central Government under the Motor Vechicles Act, 1939 required the conductor of a stage carriage while crossing an unmanned railway level E crossing with his vehicles to make the driver stop the vehicle on the road at the place notified for such stoppage by appropriate sign board, to get down from the vehicle and after making sure that no train is approaching the level crossing from either side, walk ahead of the vehicle until it has safely crossed the level crossing. F A train-bus accident at an unmanned level crossing resulted in majority of the bus passengers, including driver, being killed and others sustaining injuries. The hired bus was on a tour of Kerala and the trai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.