Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Ram Ajor Maurya on 1 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: III(2004)ACC841, III(2005)ACC57, 2006ACJ1395, 2005(2)AWC2264
Author: Prakash Krishna
Bench: Prakash Krishna
JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 4.2.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT No. 180 of 1995.
2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent on the allegation that he was posted as a driver in Bus No. UMH 9158 and was driving it from Jaunpur to Pratapgarh Patti on 5.7.1991. The aforesaid bus belonging to the appellant met with an accident with a truck, which was being driven rashly and negligently. The claimant who was driver of the aforesaid bus of the appellant applied break but the truck collided with the bus, with the result that the claimant received injuries in his right leg and became unconscious. He was confined to the Hospital for a period of about two months and has claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 52,000. The said claim has been decreed in part by the Tribunal. It has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation against the appellant.
3. Raising the short controversy present appeal has been filed. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding damages against the appellant in favour of its driver who was driving the appellant's bus.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
5. My attention was invited towards the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. DSM/1222. The driver of the truck was driving it negligently and dashed it against the bus belonging to the appellant. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the State Government may, by a Notification in the official Gazette constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for such areas as may be prescribed in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claim for compensation in respect of accident involving death of or bodily injuries to a person, arising out the use of Motor vehicle or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Section 168 of M.V. Act empowers the Claims Tribunal to pass award after affording opportunity of hearing, determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and specified person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. It shall while making the award direct the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or any of them as the case may be to pay the compensation amount. In the case in hand, the findings of the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. The Tribunal has not held that the accident took place on account of any negligence of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The truck in question did not belong to UPSRTC. The claimant has not impleaded the owner or driver of the truck in the claim petition. The claimant was an employee of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant.
6. An argument was raised before the Claims Tribunal that no award can be passed against the appellant, as there was no fault on the part of the appellant. It is not the case of the claimant that accident took place on account of any fault of the appellant. This point has been met by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon a judgment given in the case of New India Insurance Company Limited v. Maimun Nisha and Ors., 1997 (1) TAC 475. The aforesaid case has no application and is distinguishable on facts. Therein the person was a Coolie and was travelling in the offending truck. The vehicle met with an accident as the driver of the vehicle lost control over the same. On these facts of case, it was held that the claimants are entitled to get the compensation amount against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. The accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle and the deceased was there in the capacity of an employee and the vehicle met with the accident on account of negligence of the driver who was employed by the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the act of his servants and agents. In the case in hand the driver of the bus received injuries at the most in course of his employment for which UPSRTC was not at all at fault. The fault, if any, was either of the truck driver or of the claimant himself. The claimant has not suffered any loss or injury on account of any negligence of the appellant. The appellant, not in any way has been held to be responsible for the accident and the resultant injury to the claimant. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna and Ors. v. J.P. Sharma and Ors., 1998 (2) AC 595, has held as follows :
"It is well-settled that to succeed a claim of compensation for injury suffered or for the death caused in accident by the use of Motor vehicle for holding the owner, driver and insurer liable to pay compensation, proof of negligence is necessary. Therefore, where a workman or the legal representative of the deceased workman prefers the Forum of the Tribunal to claim . compensation for the injury suffered or for the death of a workman in a motor accident they undertake the burden of proving of negligence of owner/insurer so as to make them liable to pay compensation."
7. Negligence of the owner of the offended motor vehicle is the sine qua non for the claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant for the injuries suffered by the claimant. The appellant cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the claimant respondent under Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant respondent can claim compensation for the injuries and the loss suffered by him from the owner and driver of the offending truck.
9. In the result, I find sufficient force in the appeal. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition stands dismissed. Rs. 20,000 deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal, if not already remitted. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount.
10. There will be no order as to costs.