Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1420 (RAJ)

Neeraj v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

2022-05-05

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been submitted by the appellants-claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.06.2008 passed by the Court of Special judge, Dacoity Affected Area cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC case No. 93/2006, whereby the Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on the record and hearing counsel for the parties rejected the claim petition of the claimants appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants claimants submitted that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with Police Station Diholi on 18.02.2006 stating therein that on 13.02.2006, he along with his niece were going on a motor cycle bearing No. RJ-11-1M-5034. When they reached near Diholi petrol pump, a group of blue buck came in front of them and in order to stop the motorcycle when brake was applied, his nephew fell down on the road and he sustained injuries and, thereafter he was taken to hospital and he remained admitted there till 18.02.2006 and ultimately on 19.02.2006, he succumbed to the injuries sustained and thereafter the claim petition was filed for getting compensation. Counsel further submitted that the claim petition of the appellants has been rejected on the ground that no report with regard to negligence of the driver of the vehicle was lodged. Hence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the incident has not occurred due to negligence of driver of the motorcycle. Counsel further submitted that while deciding issue No. 3, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was sitting on the motorcycle as a pillion rider and no premium was taken and by recording this finding also the issue was decided in favour of the insurance company. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Kaushnuma Begum and Others v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 485 and stated that in the facts of said case, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not restricted to decide the claims arising out of negligence in the use of motor vehicles. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the negligence is only one of the species of the causes of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the negligence is only one of the species of the causes of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid judgment due to burst of tyre of the jeep, the injured sustained injuries and adequate compensation was granted to him. Counsel further submitted that bare perusal of the insurance policy (Ex. NA1) clearly indicates that it was a package policy which covers the liability of the Insurance Company even for the pillion rider. Lastly, counsel for the appellants submitted that under the above facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires reconsideration, so the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the whole matter afresh. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the factum of accident was not proved and the case of the claimants does not fall within the parameters of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition vide judgment dated 26.06.2008. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that the negligence of respondent No. 2 was not proved and no FIR in this regard was lodged. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. v. Dr. Manoj Bisla & Ors., reported in 2012 (3) TAC 353 (SC). 4. However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to controvert the fact of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Kaushnuma Begum (supra). 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment dated 26.06.2008. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaushnuma Begum (supra) has dealt with the identical issue in Para Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12. "8. We have to proceed on two premises based on the finding of the Tribunal. The first is that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the jeep. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaushnuma Begum (supra) has dealt with the identical issue in Para Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12. "8. We have to proceed on two premises based on the finding of the Tribunal. The first is that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the jeep. Second is that the deceased was knocked down by the jeep when its front tyre burst and consequently the vehicle became disbalanced and turned turtle. Should there necessarily be negligence of the person who drove the vehicle if a claim for compensation (due to the accident involving that vehicle) is to be sustained? 9. For considering the above question we may refer to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Chapter XII of the MV Act subsumed the provisions relating to "Claims Tribunal". Whatever could be considered and determined by the civil Courts in suits claiming compensation in respect of accidents, arising out of the use of motor vehicles, have been now directed to be determined by Claims Tribunals established by the State under the provisions of the MV Act. Of course, when accident in this case happened it was the old MV Act which was in force. But the old Act contained identical provisions in respect of a lot of matters connected with Claims Tribunal. For the purpose of the appeal only those provisions which are identically worded need be considered. So it would be convenient to refer to the provisions of the new Act. 11. It must be noted that the jurisdiction of the 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 causes of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. There are other premises for such cause of action. 12. Even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, but accident happens while the vehicle was in use, should not the owner be made liable for damages to the person who suffered on account of such accident? This question depends upon how far the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1861-1873 All England Reports (Reprint) 1) can apply in motor accident cases. This question depends upon how far the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1861-1873 All England Reports (Reprint) 1) can apply in motor accident cases. The said Rule is summarised by Blackburn, J, thus: The true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default, or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but, as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient." 7. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration more particularly in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Kaushnuma Begum and Surender Kumar Arora (supra). 8. The judgment dated 26.06.2008 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to adjudicate the same on merits on the basis of issues framed therein, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.05.2022. 10. With the above observations, the appeal stands allowed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 12. However, looking to the fact that the accident occurred in year 2006, the Tribunal is expected to decide the matter expeditiously as early as possible. 13. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the Tribunal forthwith.