Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal for Compensation Under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act: Nishan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company (27 April 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 362

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Can a claimant be denied compensation if the primary negligence is attributed to the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling, rather than the other vehicle involved in the accident? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a fatal motor vehicle accident. The core issue revolved around whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) was correct in dismissing a claim for compensation based on its finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the car driver and not the truck driver. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.

Case Background

On 28th November 2010, Nishan Singh was traveling with his wife, Balvinder Kaur, and other family members in a Maruti car. The car, driven by Manjeet Singh, collided with a truck from behind. The accident resulted in serious injuries to the occupants of the car, and Balvinder Kaur succumbed to her injuries on the same day. Nishan Singh, along with his children, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation for the death of Balvinder Kaur, asserting that the truck driver’s negligence caused the accident. They claimed that the truck driver suddenly applied brakes while in the center of the road, causing the Maruti car to collide with the truck from the rear. The claimants also asserted that Balvinder Kaur was earning around Rs. 10,000 per month from her dairy business.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed the claim petition, holding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car driver, Manjeet Singh, and not the truck driver. The Tribunal also noted that the owner and driver of the Maruti car were not made parties to the claim petition. The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the Tribunal’s decision, agreeing that the evidence indicated the Maruti car driver was negligent and had failed to maintain a safe distance from the truck. The High Court also noted that the Maruti car driver, owner, and insurance company were not made parties to the claim petition.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which states:

“23. Distance from vehicles in front.­ The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.”

The court also considered Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for no-fault liability of the owner of the vehicle involved in an accident.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the finding of the Tribunal and High Court that the Maruti car driver did not maintain a safe distance was incorrect.
• They contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the Maruti car was driven rashly and negligently.
• The appellants asserted that the non-registration of the Maruti car in the name of Manjeet Singh and lack of proper documents should not deny them compensation due to the contributory negligence of the truck driver.
• They argued that the Tribunal erred in recording a finding on contributory negligence without framing an issue on that behalf.
• The appellants contended that the Tribunal overlooked the charge sheet filed by the police against the truck driver.
• They reiterated their claim for compensation, stating that Balvinder Kaur’s death caused grave hardship to her family.
• The appellants argued that the Tribunal and High Court had dealt with the matter in a hyper-technical manner without appreciating the evidence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents supported the Tribunal’s finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car driver.
• They argued that no liability could be fastened on the respondents based on the finding that the truck driver was not negligent.
• The respondents contended that the analysis of the evidence by the Tribunal and High Court did not warrant any interference.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in their attempt to highlight the contributory negligence of the truck driver despite the primary negligence of the car driver, and also to argue that the technicalities of car ownership and documentation should not deny compensation to the victim’s family.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering issue No. 1 against the appellants and in favor of the respondents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Indra Devi and others Vs. Bagada Ram and another [2010] 13 SCC 249 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the proposition that liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is regardless of whether the subject vehicle was driven rashly and negligently.
• Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa and Another Vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and Another [2010] 8 SCC 620 – Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited to support the proposition that liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is regardless of whether the subject vehicle was driven rashly and negligently.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989: This regulation mandates that a driver must maintain a sufficient distance from the vehicle in front to avoid a collision.
• Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section provides for no-fault liability of the owner of the vehicle involved in an accident.

Judgment

Indra Devi and others Vs. Bagada Ram and another [2010] 13 SCC 249* and Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa and Another Vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and Another [2010] 8 SCC 620* were used to support the application of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for no-fault liability, irrespective of the rash and negligent driving of the subject vehicle.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a combination of legal principles and factual analysis. The court acknowledged that the primary negligence lay with the Maruti car driver for not maintaining a safe distance. However, it also recognized the need to provide some relief to the victim’s family, even when the primary negligence was not on the part of the truck driver. This was achieved by invoking Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for no-fault liability in cases of accidents.

The Court’s reasoning was step-by-step:

The court considered the argument that the truck driver was also negligent but rejected it based on the evidence. The court also considered the fact that the Maruti car driver and owner were not made parties to the claim petition, but this was not a factor in the court’s decision to award compensation under Section 140. The court’s final decision was reached by balancing the factual findings with the legal principle of no-fault liability under Section 140.

The majority opinion was that while the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act failed due to lack of evidence of the truck driver’s negligence, the appellants were entitled to relief under Section 140. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Even if a claimant fails to prove rash and negligent driving by the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, they may still be entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• Drivers must maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front to avoid collisions, as mandated by traffic rules and regulations.
• The no-fault liability provision under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a safety net for victims of road accidents, ensuring that some compensation is available even when negligence is not clearly established.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the truck owner and the insurance company) to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants as compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even when a claimant fails to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle involved in an accident, they are still entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for no-fault liability. This judgment reinforces the principle that the victim’s family should not be left without any recourse to compensation even when the primary negligence lies with the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was traveling. It clarifies that Section 140 is a distinct provision that operates independently of the requirement to prove negligence under Section 166 of the Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, granting limited relief to the appellants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While the court upheld the finding that the primary negligence was with the Maruti car driver, it invoked the no-fault liability provision to award compensation to the victim’s family. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining safe distances while driving and highlights the role of Section 140 in providing immediate relief to victims of road accidents, regardless of fault.