Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Lal And Anr. vs Phool Singh And Ors. on 26 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2008)149PLR167
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. This is an appeal against the award dated 10.5.1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short the 'tribunal') in M.A.C.T. case No. 5 of 8.7.1984 vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimants was ordered to be dismissed.
2. The appellants-claimants filed a petition against the respondents claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. forty thousand). It was pleaded in the claim petition that Sukhdev Singh deceased who was son of the appellant-claimants, was employed with the Post and Telegraphs Department on daily wages and his monthly salary was Rs. 300/-. It was the case of the claimants that the Post and Telegraph Department had engaged a Tempo bearing No. HRJ-4379 for carrying telephone exchange machinery from Jind to Kilajafargarh. On 17th March, 1983, the. said tempo, driven by Rajpal Singh, was going to Kilajafargarh and at that time Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones) and Junior Engineer (Phones) were sitting by the side of the driver while some labourers were standing at the back of the tempo. When this tempo crossed Juliana, its left rear wheel went off the axle, as a result of which Sukhdev Singh fell from the tempo and received serious injuries. It was claimed that the driver was driving the tempo rashly and negligently and at a fast speed. Sukhdev Singh was taken to Health Center, Juliana, from where he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, where he expired after five days. The age of the deceased at that time was 25 years. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was claimed as compensation.
3. The claim was contested and it was claimed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that driver was not driving the tempo in a rash and negligent manner. It was further claimed that all of a sudden rear wheel of the tempo left its axle and out of fear the deceased Sukhdev Singh had jumped from the vehicle in order to save his life and in that process received injuries on his person. It was also the case of the respondents that Sukhdev Singh died due to his own negligence and not due to negligence of respondent No. 2. The factum of tempo having been hired by the Post and Telegraph Department was admitted. The liability to pay compensation was denied.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:
1. Whether the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to recover and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petitioners are not related to the deceased and hence (have) no locus standi to file the petition? OPR
4. Relief.
On issue No. 1 a finding was recorded by the learned tribunal that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and in view of this, issue No. 2 was also decided against the claimant-appellants, whereas issue No. 3 was decided against the respondents. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that even if the finding of the learned tribunal on the question of negligence is maintained, still the appellant-claimants are entitled to compensation claimed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt) v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:
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 or 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.
19. Like any other common law principle, which is acceptable to our jurisprudence, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher 1861-73 All. E.R. (Reprint) I can be followed at least until any other new principle which excels the former can be evolved, or until legislation provides differently. Hence, we are disposed to adopt the rule in claims for compensation made in respect of motor accidents.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in F.A.O. No. 87 of 1994, Yadhwinder Sharma v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation , decided on 11.8.2006 where the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed.
6. It may be noticed that the facts stated above would show that there was some negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle as in case the vehicle was mechanically checked properly, there would have been no occasion for this accident to have occurred. Furthermore once the factum of wheel of the tempo having left the axle is proved, it could not be said that the fault was totally that of the deceased as is sought to be projected.
7. In view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as followed by this Court, the present appeal is allowed. As regards quantum of compensation, the amount claimed cannot be said to be beyond the compensation fixed under Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the appeal as well as the claim petition filed by the claimants are allowed. It is held that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- i.e. (Rs. 40,000 minus Rs. 15,000/- received under 'No fault liability') along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. The liability of the respondents shall be joint and several.