D T C Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was fixed for final hearing on 4.11.2003 but as no one was present on behalf of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed in default on that day. This application is now filed for restoration of the appeal on the ground that since the counsel was busy in another matter, he reached this court a bit late and due to his absence, the matter was dismissed in default. The case relates to the year 1993 in respect of compensation to the legal heirs of the person who had died in a road accident in the year 1990. Mr.Dhir states that he will have no objection to the matter being heard finally today itself after restoration of the appeal. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. The application stands disposed of.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has awarded compensation in favour of the respondents/claimants. The contentions of Mr.Dhir are that -

(3.) In so far as the first contention is concerned, I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant but I have not been able to make myself agreeable with him that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation because of the accident having been caused for reasons beyond the control of driver. The Supreme Court in S. Kaushnuma Begum and others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 Supreme Court 485 has clearly held that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims arising out of the negligence in the use of motor vehicles. Negligence is only one of the species of the causes of action for 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. It was held that where the deceased pedestrian was knocked down by jeep when its front tyre burst and consequently the vehicle became disbalanced and turned tastle, the owner can be made vicariously liable for damages to dependants of victim even if there is no negligence on the part of driver or owner of motor vehicle. Even apart from Section 140 which envisages no fault liability claim for compensation can be sustained by applying Rule in Rylands Vs. Fletcher (1861-73) All ER (Reprint) 1 unless any one of exceptions to Rule can be applied. It was held that no fault liability envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the former the compensation amount is fixed and is payable even if any one of the exceptions to the Rule can be applied. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant should not get any amount under that count. Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. It was held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act permit that compensation paid under 'no fault liability' can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the tribunal.