Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This C.M.A. is filed against the order, dated 16-3-2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, in IA No. 1807 of 2003 in O.P. No. 257 of 2003.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 filed the O.P., claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as compensation, for the death of their four years son, in an accident that occurred on 26-12-2002, involving vehicle bearing No. AP-03-U-4177. They also filed I.A. No. 1807 of 2003 for awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, towards 'no fault liability', under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), pending adjudication to the O.P. The appellant, Insurance Company, resisted the application on the ground that the bus involved in the accident, though insured with it, was hired by A.P.S.R.T.C.-2nd respondent herein, and in that view of the matter, neither the owner of the vehicle nor its Insurance Company, can be held liable to pay any amount including the one towards 'no fault liability'. The Tribunal repelled this contention and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards 'no fault liability' to the Respondents 3 and 4. The appellant, A.P.S.R.T.C., and the owner of the vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay that amount.

5. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the accident took place involving the vehicle AP-03-U-4177, owned by the 1st respondent and that it was insured with it. Section 140 of the Act provides for payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of death in an accident involving in a motor vehicle, irrespective of any neglect or default on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle. For awarding the sum, provided for, under Section 140 of the Act, neither framing of an issue nor recording a finding as to the negligence on the part of the driver is necessary. If there is no serious dispute as to the very occurrence of the accident involving vehicle, awarding of the amount covered by Section 140, is almost a matter of course. It is for this reason that the Respondents 3 and 4 filed I.A. for awarding the amount. Before the Tribunal, there was no dispute that the son of Respondents 3 and 4 died in an accident involving the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded the sum as prayed for.

Para-17: The definition of owner under Section 2(19) of the Act is not exhaustive. It has, therefore to be construed, in a wider sense, in the facts and circumstances of a given case. The expression owner must include, in a given case, the person who has the actual possession and control of the vehicle and under whose directions and commands the driver is obliged to operate the bus. To confine the meaning of 'owner' to the registered owner only would in a case where the vehicle is in the actual possession and control of the hirer, not be proper for the purpose of fastening of liability in case of an accident. The liability of the 'owner' is vicarious for the tort committed by its employee during the course of his employment and it would be a question of fact in each case as to on whom can vicarious liability be fastened in the case of an accident...."

14. Further Chapter XI of the new Act provides for compulsory insurance of the vehicles against 3rd party risks. It was in compliance with this, that the 3rd respondent insured his vehicle with the appellant. Even assuming that there can be registered owner as well as an owner under an agreement of lease in respect of the same vehicle, the new Act does not provide for taking out of insurance coverages by both of them independently, A policy coverage taken by one would cover the liability.

15. If the contention of the appellant is to be accepted, the owner and insurer of a taxi vehicle can plead that they are not liable in the event of an accident taking place, when the vehicle is under hire. With impunity, they can plead that it is the person who hired the vehicle either for a short period or a longer duration that is liable to compensate for the death or injuries caused due to accidents. Similarly, the owner of a goods vehicle and its insurer can plead that the liability to pay the compensation arising out of an accident involving the vehicle, has to be met by the person or agency whose goods are being transported. This is not the purport of the Motor Vehicles Act or the concept of insurance against third party risk. The possibility of such interpretations is ruled under the new Act. Such a course of action would defeat the very purpose of enactment of the relevant provisions, to cover third party risks. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal,