D.T.C. And Anr. vs Smt. Surinder Kaur And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1326 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This appeal was fixed for final hearing on 4.11.2003 but as no one was present on behalf of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed in default on that day. This application is now filed for restoration of the appeal on the ground that since the counsel was busy in another matter, he reached this court a bit late and due to his absence, the matter was dismissed in default. The case relates to the year 1993 in respect of compensation to the legal heirs of the person who had died in a road accident in the year 1990. Mr. Dhir states that he will have no objection to the matter being heard finally today itself after restoration of the appeal. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. The application stands disposed of.

FAO No.251/1993

2. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has awarded compensation in favor of the respondents/claimants. The contentions of Mr. Dhir are that - (1) that the accident was caused due to sudden failure of brakes on which the driver had no control and consequently the driver being not negligent, the appellant could not be directed to pay compensation to the claimants; and (2) the deceased being 33 years of age, the correct multiplier to be applied in such cases as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was 17 whereas the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 25 to arrive at just compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased.

3. In so far as the first contention is concerned, I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant but I have not been able to make myself agreeable with him that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation because of the accident having been caused for reasons beyond the control of driver. The Supreme Court in S. Kaushnuma Begum and others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has clearly held that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims arising out of the negligence in the use of motor vehicles. Negligence is only one of the species of the causes of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. There are other premises for such cause of action. It was held that where the deceased pedestrian was knocked down by jeep when its front tyre burst and consequently the vehicle became disbalanced and turned tastle, the owner can be made vicariously liable for damages to dependants of victim even if there is no negligence on the part of driver or owner of motor vehicle. Even apart from Section 140 which envisages no fault liability claim for compensation can be sustained by applying Rule in Rylands Vs. Fletcher (1861-73) All ER (Reprint) 1 unless any one of exceptions to Rule can be applied. It was held that no fault liability envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the former the compensation amount is fixed and is payable even if any one of the exceptions to the Rule can be applied. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant should not get any amount under that count. Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. It was held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act permit that compensation paid under 'no fault liability' can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the tribunal.

4. Besides the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act also contemplates the payment of compensation notwithstanding that the accident was not caused because of the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

5. Though there are some merits in the contention of Mr. Dhir that the deceased being 33 years of age, the correct multiplier to be applied in such case is as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was 17 and not 25 as had been applied by the tribunal. I may have reduced the compensation after applying the multiplier of 17 but I find that the tribunal while deciding the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased. If future prospects in the life and career of the deceased are taken into consideration, the loss of dependency will be much higher than what has been taken by the tribunal and applying the multiplier of 17, the claimants may be entitled to more compensation than what has been directed to be paid by the tribunal. That being the position, I have not thought it necessary to interfere with the award on the ground that the multiplier applied should have been 17 in place of 25. There being no merits in this appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.