MINU B MEHTA Vs. BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA NAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution by the two appellants against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing their appeal against the judgment of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay and confirming the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents and directing the Tribunal to decide the question of the liability of the Insurance Company on its application that its liability is limited to Rupees 20,000 under Section 110E of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 referred to as the Act, after giving opportunity to the parties.

(2.) The applicant in Applicator No. 727 of 1969 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay is one Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan practising in Bombay and is the respondent in this appeal. On 14th April, 1969 at about 1.00 p.m. the respondent was driving his car No. MRC-4450 towards Fort side on Dr. Annie Besant Road. With him was sitting on the left side in the front seat Malati M Deshmukh, his nurse. The road has stone dividers in the middle of the road. When the car approached Lotus Cinema,. the truck owned by the appellants and insured with the Insurance Company who were opposite parties 1 to 3 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came from the opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against the right side of the car. Due to the impact the car was damaged and the 1st respondent and Malati M. Deshmukh were injured. Respondent 1 had to undergo treatment. He was operated on the day of the accident itself and was patient in his own Nursing Home for a month till 15th May, 1969. According to him his right arm was operated and kept in plaster and that he had become permanently disabled in discharging his duties as a surgeon and that he had incurred a loss during the closure of the Nursing Home and loss of income due to permanent injury along with other claims. He claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs by way of general and special damages with interest thereon from the date of his application. The owners of the vehicle filed a written statement refuting the claim of the applicant. According to them while the motor lorry was proceeding from Haji Ali towards Worli, they had taken all precaution to keep the lorry in road worthy condition and that at the material time the axle brake ring of the motor lorry came out and the driver therefore lost control of the vehicle and because of this defect which can develop in a running car the driver lost control of the steering wheel. According to them the lorry prior to the accident was being driven at a moderate speed with due care and caution. They contended that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. They also denied the claim of various items of compensation made by the applicant.

(3.) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed four issues. The first 2 issues were whether the applicant had proved that the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and whether the opposite party had proved that at the time of accident the axle brake ring of the motor lorry came out and the driver lost control of the motor lorry. The other 2 issues related to the question as to whether the applicant received the injuries as a result of this accident and whether he was entitled to the compensation claimed by him.