KAUSHNUMA BEGUM Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Can a claim be maintained before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) on the basis of strict liability propounded in Rylands vs. Fletcher, (1861-1873 All England Reports 1) The Tribunal dismissed a claim made before it solely on the ground that there was neither rashness nor negligence in driving the vehicle and hence the driver has no liability, and the corollary of which is that the owner has no vicarious liability to pay compensation to the dependants of the victim of a motor accident. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants by a cryptic order stating that there is no error in the Tribunal's order. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The accident which gave rise to the claim occurred at about 7.00 p.m. on 20-3-1986. The vehicle involved in the accident was a jeep. It capsized while it was in motion. The cause of the capsize was attributed to bursting of the front tyre of the jeep. In the process of capsizing the vehicle hit against one Haji Mohammad Hanif who was walking on the road at that ill-fated moment and consequently that pedestrian was crushed and subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident.