AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 14.3.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 298/2011 for the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.4.2011, at about 17.30, Mohd. Aleem, the deceased was going on a cycle along with Mohd. Sufiyan. When they reached near Tikuniya Park, a truck was coming from back side, whose driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The vehicle i.e. Truck No. U.P. 72 H 9435 hit the cyclist. The cyclist and the pillion rider have fallen down. The deceased was taken to a primary health centre from where he was referred to the Lucknow Medical College, where he died on the same night. The appellant-claimants have filed a claim petition, where the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 as a compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. Not being satisfied, the appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal.
With this background, Mr. Prem Shanker Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the deceased Mohd. Aleem was 18 years old. He was unmarried. He was employed as a salesman and his monthly income was Rs. 3,500.
Learned Counsel further submits that the compensation under the "no fault liability" was awarded for a meager amount of Rs. 50,000. So, he made a request that the compensation may kindly be enhanced.
None appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.
After hearing learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, it appears that the occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. On the date of the accident, the driver of the truck was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. On the date of the accident, the policy was alive. The only disputed point is regarding the quantum.
From the record, it appears that the deceased was going on a cycle along with his cousin brother, namely, Mohd. Sufiyan, who in his cross-examination submitted that he did not remember the exact occurrence of the accident. He was not remembering whether front wheel or the back wheel hits the cyclist.
From the other evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the back left wheel of the truck. Thus, the Tribunal observed that the truck driver was not careless.
In the instant case, the truck was having 10 wheels. So, it cannot be moved with the speed specially in the congested area. Being a big vehicle, its driver was driving it carefully. So, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. The accident occurred due to the back left wheel of the vehicle, so there was no negligence on the part of driver. On the other hand, the deceased was careless on the road. However, the Tribunal u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 under "no fault liability".
Needless to mention that in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, , the Hon''ble Apex Court observed as under:
Today, thanks to the modern civilization, thousands of motor vehicles are put on the road and the largest number of injuries and deaths are taking place-on the roads on account of the motor vehicles accidents. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, the motor vehicles upon the roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands v. Fletcher. From the point of view of the pedestrian the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of the motor vehicles highly dangerous. Hit and run cases where the drivers of the motor vehicles who have caused the accidents are not known are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a vehicle whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives as the case may be should be entitled to recover damages if the principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. In order to meet to some extent the responsibility of the society to the deaths and injuries caused in road accidents there has been a continuous agitation throughout the world to make the liability for damages arising out of motor vehicles accidents as a liability without fault.
No Fault Liability envisaged in Section 140 of the MV Act 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 exceptions to the Rule can be applied. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant 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 of a statute.
In the light of above discussion and by considering of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears reasonable and the same is hereby sustained along with reasons mentioned therein. The concerned Tribunal is directed to proceed with the award in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimants is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.