AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small
Causes), Chennai in MACT.O.P. No. 2727 of 1991 dated 4.8.1994. The unsuccessful petitioner/claimant is the appellant herein. He filed the
petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the ground that while he was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No. TMZ.662 in
Periyar Salai, Chennai at about 8 p.m. on 28.9.1991 in east-west direction, another motorcycle coming in opposite direction tried to overtake a
bus belonging to Pallavan Transport Corporation and dashed against the motorcycle driven by the claimant as a result of which the accident had
occurred and the claimant sustained injuries and hence, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was claimed as compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
The plea of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle coming in the opposite
direction was denied by the first respondent/owner of the motorcycle who drove the vehicle coming in opposite direction and also by the Insurance
Company. The Pallavan Transport Corporation which was impleaded as the third respondent in the claim petition also denied the case of the
claimant that the Pallavan Transport Corporation was in any way responsible for the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as ''the Claims Tribunal''), on the basis of evidence, came to the conclusion that the plea of the claimant that due to rash and negligent
driving of the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction, the accident had occurred was not correct. The Claims Tribunal found that the claimant
has driven his motorcycle on the wrong side of the road crossing the yellow line and only due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant the
accident had occurred. The Claims Tribunal also found that the bus belonging to Pallavan Transport Corporation was not in any way involved in
the accident. The Claims Tribunal held that the claimant was solely responsible for the accident, however, considered other issues including the
amount of compensation payable to the claimant and fixed the compensation at Rs. 32, 593/-.
One other point that was raised by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal was that though the appellant was at fault, since he sustained injuries
as the result of the accident, the Insurance Company as well as the Pallavan Transport Corporation would be liable to pay compensation under the
head, ''no fault liability''. The Claims Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meenal and
Others, and held that since the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the claimant and no wrong was committed either by the owner of
the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction or by the driver of the bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport Corporation, the Insurance
Company as well as the Pallavan Transport Corporation was not required to pay any amount of compensation in the absence of any liability being
imposed on them. In the result, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. It is against the order of the Claims Tribunal, the present appeal
has been preferred.
The first submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not responsible for the accident and it was only due to the
negligence of the driver of the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction when he tried to overtake the bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport
Corporation, the accident had occurred and therefore, the Claims Tribunal was not correct in holding that the accident had occurred due to the
negligence of the appellant. We have gone through the evidence on record and we find that the appellant was proceeding from east to west in
Periyar Salai and the evidence discloses that the appellant has crossed the yellow line and dashed against the motorcycle coming in the opposite
direction and the accident occurred on the right side of the road. We also find that though the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction has tried
to overtake the bus belonging to Pallavan Transport Corporation, the bus and the motorcycle were within the yellow line and it was only the
appellant who crossed the yellow line and dashed against the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. Thanthai Periyar Salai is an arterial
road in the City and it is a fairly broad road and the fact that the appellant has crossed the yellow line drawn in the middle of such a broad road
and dashed the vehicle coming in the opposite direction clearly shows that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence and rash driving of
the appellant. The field map also discloses that the appellant was the cause of the accident. We also find that the bus belonging to Pallavan
Transport Corporation was not in any way involved in the accident and there is also no evidence to show that the driver of the motorcycle coming
in the opposite direction was negligent in overtaking the bus belonging to Pallavan Transport Corporation. The evidence on the other side shows
that the two vehicles coming in the opposite direction were within the yellow line and only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant, the
accident had occurred. We hold that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
appellant is quite justified and based on material on record and there are absolutely no reasons to take a different view on this aspect. We reject
the argument of the counsel for the appellant as not sustainable.
Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not correct in dismissing the entire claim petition and according to
him, the Claims Tribunal should have awarded the compensation under the head, ''no fault liability'' u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The
Claims Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meenal and Others, wherein this Court held that
though accident had occurred due to his own negligence of the driver and no wrong was committed by the driver of the other vehicle which
involved in the accident, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation even under the head, ''no fault liability''. Learned
counsel for the appellant referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Nandakumar Vs. Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport
Corpn., where the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of collision between a bus and a motorcycle due to the negligent driving of the
motorcyclist who suffered permanent disablement. The Supreme Court, while reversing the decision of this Court, held that though the
injured/claimant was solely responsible for the accident, he cannot be denied compensation under the head, ''no fault liability''. The Supreme Court
also held that the Insurance Company should pay compensation with interest. Though the decision was rendered with reference to section 92-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Nandakumar Vs. Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport
Corpn., would equally apply to the provisions of section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the second respondent referred to the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay
Vajubhai Pari and Others, where the Gujarat High Court has taken the view that the driver of the vehicle who was not responsible for the accident
was also liable to pay compensation to the owner or driver of the other vehicle, though the owner or driver of the other vehicle was negligent in
driving the vehicle. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Bangalore and Another Vs. Smt. Maire Sherigarthi and Others, and the decision of a Full Bench of Orissa High Court in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinanath Agrawalla and Others, wherein Mr. A. Pasayat, Actg.C.J. (as His Lordship then was), presiding over the Full Bench of the
Orissa High Court, held that before compensation is awarded u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Tribunal should satisfy itself with
reference to the following aspects:-
(a) an accident has arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle;
(b) the said accident has resulted in permanent disablement of the person who is making claim, or death of the person whose legal representatives
are making the claim; and
(c) the claim is made against the owner and insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. In other words, the vehicle is the subject-matter of
insurance.
We are of the view, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Nandakumar Vs. Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corpn., and
the decision of the Gujarat High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Vajubhai Pari and Others, and the decision of the Karnataka
High Court in The United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore and Another Vs. Smt. Maire Sherigarthi and Others, and the decision of
the Orissa High Court, cited supra, would equally apply to the facts of the case.
As far as Pallavan Transport Corporation, third respondent in the appeal is concerned, the bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport Corporation
was not responsible in any way for the accident and there was no collision between the motorcycle driven by the appellant and the bus belonging
to the third respondent Corporation. Hence, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation even under the category of no fault liability. As
far as the first respondent whose vehicle has been insured with the second respondent is concerned, it is no doubt true that the first respondent was
not responsible for the accident and the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant himself. Though there is
no logic in directing the victim (first respondent) of the accident to pay compensation as the appellant was solely responsible and he was the tort
feasor and the first respondent was not responsible for the accident, yet, under the law as it stands, the appellant is entitled to the claim
compensation from the first respondent as well as from the second respondent with whom the vehicle of the first respondent had been insured.
Therefore we hold that the first respondent and the second respondent/Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. Since the accident had
occurred on 28.9.1991, the amount of compensation payable under the category of no fault liability is Rs. 12, 000/- and the appellant is entitled to
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 12, 000/- from the date of petition.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed partly and there will be an award against the respondents 1 and 2 directing them to pay to the appellant
a sum of Rs. 12, 000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. No costs.