Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident that occurred on 17/11/2009 on Wani-Yavatmal Road involving two trucks: one bearing registration no. MH34/M/6271 (insured with Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.) and another bearing no. MH26/H/6832 (insured with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant). The deceased, Mohd. Shoab, was a cleaner on the second truck. While the first truck was proceeding ahead, the second truck dashed into it from behind, causing fatal injuries to the cleaner. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on the principle of no fault liability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pusad, by order dated 15/03/2011, apportioned the liability equally at 50% each between the owner and insurer of the first truck (opponent nos. 2 and 3) and the owner and insurer of the second truck (opponent nos. 4 and 5). The appellant, being the insurer of the second truck, challenged this order. The appellant argued that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the first truck, and therefore the entire liability should be on its insurer. The High Court examined the nature of no fault liability under Section 140, which is a strict liability irrespective of negligence. However, the court noted that the deceased was an occupant of the vehicle insured by the appellant. The liability under Section 140 arises from the use of a motor vehicle that causes death or injury. Since the deceased was in the vehicle that caused the accident (by dashing into the other), the court reasoned that the insurer of that vehicle cannot be held liable for the death of its own occupant under the no fault principle. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order against the appellant, and directed that the liability be borne entirely by the insurer of the other vehicle.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - No Fault Liability - Section 140 - Apportionment - The Tribunal apportioned liability 50:50 between the insurers of both vehicles involved in a collision, where the deceased was a cleaner in one truck. The High Court held that the insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling cannot be held liable under Section 140 as the deceased was an occupant of that vehicle, and the liability under no fault principle arises only from the use of the vehicle that caused the accident. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order against the appellant insurer. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was a cleaner can be held liable for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the other vehicle.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 15/03/2011 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pusad in M.A.C.P. No. 45/2010 is set aside insofar as it directs the appellant (original opponent no.5) to pay 50% of the interim compensation. The liability is to be borne entirely by the insurer of the other vehicle (Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.).
Law Points
- No fault liability
- Section 140 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- apportionment of liability
- cleaner as occupant
- vehicle involved in accident
