Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for damage to its bus (bearing registration No.KA-57-F-1261) which met with an accident. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation. Dissatisfied, BMTC appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the validity and legality of the award. The respondents were IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) and Manjunatha B.N. (owner of the offending vehicle). The High Court heard the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in not awarding the full claim. However, the court noted that the appellant had not adduced any evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The burden of proof lay on the claimant to establish negligence. Since no evidence was produced, the claim could not be sustained. Additionally, the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent insurer, so the insurer could not be held liable. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's award, and dismissed the claim petition. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Claim for Damages - Burden of Proof - The appellant, owner of a bus, claimed compensation for damage caused in an accident with another vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation against the insurer. On appeal, the High Court held that the claimant must prove negligence of the opposite party. Since the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the claim cannot be sustained. The award was set aside. (Paras 3-5) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurer - Absence of Insurance Policy - The offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent insurer. Therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The owner of the offending vehicle is personally liable. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to the appellant (BMTC) for damage to its bus without proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and whether the insurer (IFFCO Tokio) is liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 13.12.2021 passed in MVC No.6422/2019 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) is set aside. The claim petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in motor accident claims
- Liability of insurer when vehicle is not insured
- Negligence must be proved by claimant
- Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
