(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of claimant is against the award dated 19.6.1992, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Solan, whereby his claim petition was dismissed holding that the accident in question had taken place as a result of vis major and was not as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The claimant has now challenged these findings and prayed for award of . 3,00,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of payment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant, who was working as a peon with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab at Chandigarh, was travelling from Shimla to Chandigarh in a Matador bearing registration No. GDR 833 on 9.12.1989 which met with an accident at about 4 kilometres from Solan as a result of which the claimant sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of his left leg. The said Matador was owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3. The cause of accident, as given in the claim petition was that the driver "lost the control of the vehicle due to fast speed and struck against a tree which was on the extreme left side of the road". It is further stated that accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, these allegations are denied and it is stated that "the vehicle was being driven in a normal speed and while turning a very sharp curve the steering of the vehicle has jammed and it could not be controlled and the vehicle had come out of control on account of mechanical defect which could not be detected by the respondent No. 1". However, the accident and the injuries received by the claimant as a consequence thereof have not been denied. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 has denied the accident as well as injuries to the claimant for want of knowledge. It has also denied its liability on the ground that the driver was not possessing valid driving licence. It is also averred that as per the terms of the insurance policy its liability is limited to Rs. 15,000.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We find substance in the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant that jamming of steering wheel of the vehicle is a mechanical defect which cannot be termed as vis major. Quoting from Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Volume 44, Page 518: A loss vis major is one that results immediately from a natural cause without intervention of men, and could not have been prevented by exercise of prudence, diligence and care; and in the civil law, the term is sometimes used as synonymous with 'act of God' ... AND A loss is said to have been caused by vis major when it results immediately from a natural cause, without the intervention of man, and could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care and the use of those appliances which the situation of the party renders it reasonable that he should employ. Story defines vis major to be any irresistible natural cause, which cannot be guarded against by the ordinary exertions of human skill and prudence; and this definition is approved by Chief Justice Cockburn in Nugent v. Smith, 1 CP Viv 423, 437. Therefore, the findings of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that accident was result of vis major are set aside.