PETER MORRIS LOBO Vs. KUMARI SONAL MAGANLAL SHINGALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are by the appellants who are the owner of School Bus No. MRR-7274 and the Insurance Company with whom the said vehicle was insured. Respondent No. 1 in the two appeals are the two original claimants who were injured as a result of an accident that took place on 21st September, 1973 when they were sitting in the above said bus. It is pertinent to mention that when the school Bus No. MRR-7274 was stationed on the fateful day on a public road, another School Bus No. MRS-8374 came at a high speed from a by-lane and dashed against the stationary bus. The impact was so heavy that all the children travelling in the school bus were thrown from their seats and fell down inside the bus and received bodily injuries. The two claimants hereinabove received comparatively serious injuries and filed the claim applications.

(2.) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its separate judgments and orders dated 15th July, 1977 accepted the contention of appellant No. 1 that the driver of the School Bus No. MRR-7274 was not in any way negligent and that the accident occurred without any fault on his part. However, referring to the provisions of section 95 (1) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal held that the owner of the said bus was liable for damages despite the fact that the driver of the said bus was not negligent. Accordingly, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,400/- and Rs. 9,330/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order till payment. Further, referring to the provisions of section 95 (2) (B) (ii) (4) of the Act, the tribunal held that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 5,000/- in each case and that therefore the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5, 000/- to each of the two claimants only. The award in the two cases was of course passed against the owners of the vehicles, i. e. appellant No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2.

(3.) SHRI Kudroli, the learned Counsel for the appellants, i. e. the owner of the stationery bus No. MRR-7274 and the insurance Company, stated that the tribunal was not justified in holding appellant No. 1 to be liable for any compensation whatsoever in view of the admitted position that he or the driver of his vehicle was not at all negligent in the occurrence of the accident. In this connection, Shri Kudroli relied on a Kerala High Court decision in (Kesavan Nair v. State Insurance Officer) 1971 A. C. J. 219, in which Krishna Iyer, J. , (as he then was) observed in paragraph 4 at page 221 that there was an imperative need of a provision in the statue for fixing liability on the insurer even where the negligence of the driver was not proved. Shri Kudroli then referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of (Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna) A. I. R 1977 Supreme Court 1248, In that case, this Courts judgment in (Marine and General Insurance Co. v. Balkrishna) A. I. R. 1977 Bombay 53, was reversed. However, observation were made in paragraph 23 to the effect that under section 95 (1) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of a person would arise in the case of bodily injury to any passenger caused by or use of a public service public place, even though the liability might not have been incurred due to the negligence of the driver or the owner. It was pointed out that when such a question again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai) A. I. R. 1987 Supreme Court 1690 the above observations were hold to be obiter dicta and not necessary for the decision in that case (vide paragraph 6 at page 1697 ). All the same, the Supreme Court held (vide paragraph 8) that the purport and scope of section 92-A introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1982 supported the view taken by the Supreme Court earlier. In particular, Shri Kudroli referred to and relied upon the following observations from the said decision at pages 1697 and 1698:---