LAKHAN SINGH Vs. RAM KESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act passed by the learned Special Judge, Orai in Original Suit No. 86 of 1993 on 8.9.1999 has since been challenged in this appeal. Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was no evidence about the involvement of the truck in the alleged accident and as such, even though the said question is to be determined on summary proceeding, in the absence of any evidence, the award could not have been passed simply on the basis of the F.I.R. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Managing Director, Annai Sathya Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. P. Saraswathi, 1992 ACJ 248 (Madras). He also contends that in order to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, some amount of evidence other than F.I.R. would be necessary, when the accident itself is denied by the owner. He relied on the decision in the case of Shabir Hussain v. Abdul Rehman, 1991 ACJ 858 (Allahabad).

(2.) I have heard Mr. D.P. Singh at length.

(3.) Section 140 of the Act prescribes for no fault liability in certain cases. The provisions of the said section make it incumbent on the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident for payment of compensation even though no fault could be ascribed to him. Therefore, the only exception that has been provided in the said section is to the extent that it is not necessary to establish a fault of the driver or the owner. It also contemplates exception of contributory negligence. Thus it remains that at least there must be some proof about the accident and involvement of the vehicle in the accident and that the person is the owner of the vehicle. If these three conditions are fulfilled, in that event the other conditions relating to the fault or contributory negligence would be irrelevant.