RAWAT SINGH Vs. SUBE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 31.7.89 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, whereby the Tribunal has held that the accident in which Omvir Singh died had not been caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HYM -2517 by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, no compensation was payable to the claimants of the deceased under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') - At the same time, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - under 'no fault liability' clause incorporated in section 92 -A of the Act.

(2.) FIRST argument of Shri Mittal learned counsel appearing for the claimants, is that the Tribunal has committed a serious errors in deciding issue No. 1 regarding rash and negligent driving of the bus. Shri Mittal argued that the evidence produced by the claimants was sufficient for holding that the Vicky on which the deceased Omvir Singh was riding had been struck by the bus because it was being driven by respondent No. 1 at a great speed. Shri Mittal argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the Vicky driver was coming to the main road from the approach road and, therefore, it was his duty to wait and give way to the traffic approaching the intersection of the main road is wholly perverse. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance -Company, on the other hand, argued that no evidence was produced by the claimants before the Tribunal to establish that the Vicky driven by Omvir Singh had infact come on the main road and thereafter it was struck by the bus. He argued that the evidence of Rawat Singh P.W. 2 has rightly been discharged by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel since Omvir Singh was coming from the approach road it was his duty to have stopped at the intersection and to have waited for sometime in order to allow the traffic on the main road to pass and then he should have entered the main road. Instead of Vicky driver did not wait and came to the main road without taking note of the fact that the bus in question was approaching the intersection.

(3.) SECOND argument of Shri mittal is that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ - only under the 'no fault liability' clause. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - is payable even where the death is not caused due to negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle. In terms of section 140(2) amount payable in case of death is Rs. 25000/ - and in case of permanent disability is Rs. 12,000/ -. this provision has been held to be retrospective in case of Smt. Mosmi and Anr. v. Ram Kumar and Ors., 1991 (2) P.L.R. 349. Similar view has been expressed by Rajasthan Court in Kanhaiya Lal and Anr. v. Kailashi Devi and Ors. and by Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjali Mallick and Ors. . In view of these pronouncements it must be held that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the amount payable to the claimants under the 'no fault liability' clause is only Rs. 15,000/ -. In this extent the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified.