AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra, dated 12-8-75 awarding a sum of Rs. 27000/-as compensation to be paid by the Appellant Insurance Company and M/s. New Verma Transport Company the owner of the vehicle.
On 23-5-69 at about 4.30PM the deceased Manohar Lal was coming on cycle from Etmandaula side to Belanganj and while he was passing the old Jamuna Bridge at Agra, the truck No. UPA 8526 owned by M/s. New Verma Transport Company dashed against Sri Manohar Lal as a result of which he died in the hospital at about 9 PM the same day. The vehicle was insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company. Appellant No. 1 Smt. Krishna Devi widow of the deceased Manohar Lal and three minor sons of the deceased filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation from the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle for the loss of the life of Manohar Lal. The owner of the vehicle did not file any written statement. The Insurance Company filed written statement asserting that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and the owner and the insurer were not liable to pay any compensation. The Claims Tribunal by its order dated 12-5-75 held that the driver of the vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent driving as a result of which accident took place resulting into the death of Manohar Lal and as such the owner and the insurer both were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further determined a sum of Rs. 27,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants. Aggrieved, the insurer and the owner of the vehicle have preferred this appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged that the claimants did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal in support of their case that the driver of the vehicle in question was rash and negligent as a result of which the accident took place. On the other hand the facts as established on record show that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he violated one way traffic rule on the Bridge and further he received injuries as he collided against the railing of the Bridge. No injuries were caused to him by the vehicle and as such the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. We find considerable force in the contention.
Sections 110-A to 110-F provide a summary procedure for relief to those who are affected by rash and negligent driving of vehicles on the public roads. The provisions of the Act contemplate payment of compensation and damages to the claimants. The proceedings under the said provisions are like suit for damages in tort. Since proceedings in the suit are generally long drawn and full of technicalities, the Legislature has provided for summary procedure under Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, making it easier to a claimant to claim compensation for the injuries received by him in person or the property or in case the accident result into death, the dependants or legal representatives of the deceased in proceedings before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Though the proceedings are summary in nature, but the principles which regulate the award of damages in action for tort govern proceedings. In a case where damages are claimed for the death of the deceased the claimants must prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. This is the basic principle which governs the proceedings before the Tribunal. If claimants fail to lead any evidence regarding rash and negligent driving of the vehicle or if no evidence is produced by the parties on the question, the claim petition would fail. The initial burden lies on the claimants to prove the fact that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting into the accident. In absence of any such evidence the owner of the vehicle would not be liable to pay compensation. These principles are well accepted and it is not necessary to refer to authorities.
In the instant case the claimants produced only two witnesses in support of their case. PW 1 Krishna Devi, widow of the deceased appeared in the witness box, she supported the claim petition especially with regard to the income of the deceased. She stated that she was not present on the spot at the time of the accident. Naturally she could not be a witness to say anything about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Babu Lal PW2 was produced on behalf of the claimants to prove the salary of the deceased. He was also not present on the spot and as such his testimony does not contain anything about the manner in which the accident took place. Apart from these two witnesses no other witness was produced to prove the manner in which the accident took place, the claimants, therefore, failed to discharge the initial burden which lies on them.
As against this, the Appellants produced Narain Das driver of the vehicle. In his testimony he denied that any accident took place instead he stated that when he had passed Jamuna Bridge to other side, his vehicle was stopped by the constable and he was told that an accident had taken place with his truck. The witness denied that any accident had taken place with his truck. He further stated that while passing through the Bridge he was driving his vehicle with a speed of 10 Kilometers and he was not negligent or rash in driving. The testimony of the driver is not sufficient to hold that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Moreover, the driver stated that one way traffic rule was applicable on the Jamuna Bridge and when he entered the Bridge the deceased Manohar Lal in an unauthorised manner made an effort to pass through the Bridge from the opposite direction and in that effort he may have hit the railing of the Bridge causing injuries to himself. He is an interested person but there is no evidence on record to contradict his testimony. We do not find any material on record to uphold the findings of the court below that the claimants had discharged their initial burden in proving that the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner resulting into the death of Manohar Lal. In absence of such findings the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal in our opinion, committed error in awarding compensation to the claimants.
It appears that the Tribunal was influenced by the fact that there was no denial of the accident in the written statement filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. No doubt, there was no specific denial relating to the accident but in paragraph 26 of the written statement filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, it was specifically stated that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. In view of this plea it was not open to the Tribunal to place the burden on the Appellants for proving the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not guilty of rash and negligent driving. Since the claimants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, no burden lies on the Appellants to prove careful driving of the vehicle. The doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitor would also not apply as material facts for applying those principles were also not proved. The Tribunal, in our opinion, committed serious error in placing the burden of proof on the Appellants.
In the result, we allow the appeal, set. aside the order of the IInd Additional District Judge dated 12-8-75 and dismiss the claim petition. There will be no order as to costs.