SUBA TRANSPORT CO. Vs. PHIROZE SETHANE PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only limited issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the damages claimed by the respondent under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act' for the sake of brevity) can come within the ambit of the words 'damages to the property owned by the owner'.

(2.) FEW facts which are material deciding this first appeal are as under: for Appellant No. 1 in this case is the owner of the vehicle which met with an accident. Petitioner No. 2 is the insurance company. The respondent is a private limited company carrying on the business in P.V.C. material claiming the damages from the present appellants of Rs. 50,000/ - on the ground of failure of electric supply to its industrial unit due to the accident.

(3.) THE aforesaid claim was resisted by the present appellants. Appellant No. 1 in its written statement at Exh. 14 admitted the factum about its ownership of the Tempo and also about the accident damaging the electric pole belonging to the M.S.E.B. situated nearby the respondent's factory. However, appellant No. 1 denied that the concerned vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. It was contended on behalf of appellant No. 1 that the vehicle was driven with a reasonable speed. However, when the vehicle came near the spot where the accident took place, the driver of the vehicle saw an electric cable overhanging on the road. Thinking the said cable as a live electric cable, the driver suddenly tried to wheel round the vehicle due to which the driver lost control and the vehicle banged against the electric pole. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, it was contended by appellant No. 1 that it was not negligent and, therefore, not liable to pay any damages. It was also contended on behalf of appellant No. 1 that the claim of damages as mentioned by the respondent in its application is not maintainable under the M.V. Act, as the said claim cannot come within the words 'damages to the property owned by the claimant'.