Union of India Vs. Bhagwati Prasad & Ors [2002] Insc 118 (7 March 2002)
G.B.
Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan & S.N. Variava Pattanaik,J.
The
Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways is in appeal against
the Revisional order of the High Court of Allahabad. By the impugned order, the
High Court has upheld the order of the Claims Tribunal on preliminary issue as
to whether the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain
claim for compensation against Railway Administration, in the event it is held
that for the accident in question there was no negligence on the part of the
Railway Administration. A taxi came in collision with Allahabad-Saharanpur
Passenger Train as a result of which passengers died and some sustained bodily
injuries. For sustaining such bodily injuries arising out of the accident,
applications were filed claiming compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), against the insurer
of the taxi as well as against the Railway Administration. It was alleged that
the accident occurred due to the negligence of the employees of the Railway
staff at the railway crossing, the railway crossing having been kept open for
the high-way traffic at a time the train was to pass through the point. The
Railway Administration filed written statement taking the plea that application
for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can be filed against the insurer,
owner or driver of the Motor Vehicle and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain
the claim against the Railway Administration. In view of the aforesaid stand, a
preliminary issue was framed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that if
claimants have sustained injuries in an accident arising out of the use of a
Motor Vehicle then the Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to entertain
application for claim not only against the owner or insurer of the vehicle but
also against any other vehicle which came in collision, and in the case in
hand, against the Railway Administration. Against the aforesaid order of the
Tribunal Revision having been filed a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High
Court referred the matter to the Division Bench and by the impugned judgment
the Division Bench having upheld the order of the Tribunal, the present appeals
have been preferred by the grant of Special Leave. When these appeals were
taken up for hearing on 14th February, 2002 before a Bench of two learned
Judges of this Court, the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India
vs. United India Insurance Company (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 683, was placed
before the Court. The conclusion of the Court recorded in paragraph 41 of the
aforesaid judgment did not find favour with the two learned Judges who were
hearing the matter and accordingly it was directed that the matter be referred
to a larger Bench and that is how it has come before us.
Mrs. Indira
Sawhney, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Railway Administration
contends that in respect of an application for compensation filed under Section
110-A of the Act, the Tribunal constituted under sub- section (1) of Section
110 can pass an award under Section 110-A against the insurer or owner or
driver of the vehicle involved or by all or any of them, as the case may be. A
passenger train not being a Motor Vehicle, no application for claim of
compensation against Railway Administration could be entertained by the Claims
Tribunal constituted under sub- section (1) of Section 110 if the death or
injury has occurred on account of a collision between a Motor Vehicle and a
Passenger Train. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, according
to the learned counsel is unsustainable in law. In support of this contention
reliance has been placed on the decision of the Court in the case of Union of
India vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (supra). It is contended
on behalf of the respondent, however, that on account of a collision between a
Motor Vehicle and a Train if death or injury is resulted to several passengers
then the accident must be held to have arisen out of the use of Motor Vehicle.
In such a case, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be said to
be ousted merely because the collision took place between a Motor Vehicle and a
Passenger Train. It is further contended that the Railway Administration cannot
be absolved of its liability on the plea that the employees of the train were
not negligent.
On
account of the rapid development of road transport and increase in number of
Motor Vehicles on the road the incidence of road accidents by Motor Vehicles
having increased enormously the Motor Vehicles Act enacted by the Parliament
was amended and the provisions were inserted for payment of compensation in
certain cases of accidents without proof or fault or negligence on the part of
the driver of the vehicle. The claim for compensation in respect of the
accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of
Motor Vehicles as well as the insurance of the Motor Vehicles against the third
party risk and the liability of the insurer are contained in Chapter VIII of
the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Government has been empowered under Section
110(1) of the Act to constitute one or more Motor Vehicles Accidents Claim
Tribunals by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 110-A provides for
filing an application for compensation and Section 110-B is the power of the
Claims Tribunal to pass an award on receiving an application for compensation
made under sub-section (A) of Section 110. The procedure and powers of the
Claims Tribunal are enumerated in Section 110-C of the Act. It is not necessary
for adjudicating the point in issue to examine and notice any other provision
of the Act. In the case of Union of India vs. United India Insurance Company (supra)
applications for compensation had been filed either by the injured passengers
or the dependant of the deceased passengers travelling in the ill- fated Motor
Vehicle both against the insurer of the Motor Vehicle as well as against the
Railway Administration and one of the contention which had been raised before
this Court by the Railway Administration was whether a claim for compensation
would at all be maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or
agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors,
and if the same arose out of the use of the Motor Vehicle. On consideration of
different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act this Court ultimately came to
hold that , "We hold that the claim for compensation is maintainable
before the Tribunal against other persons or agencies which are held to be
guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors, and if arising out of
use of the motor vehicle. We hold that the Tribunal and the High Court were
right in holding that an award could be passed against the Railways if its
negligence in relation to the same accident was also proved." The Court
also came to hold that the views expressed by Gauhati, Orissa, and Madras High
Courts to the effect that no award can be passed against others except the
owner/driver or insurer of the motor vehicle are not correct, and on the other
hand the view taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat, Kerala and
Rajasthan High Courts to the effect that the claim lies before the Tribunal
even against another joint tortfeasor connected with the same accident or
against whom composite negligence is alleged. We are in respectful agreement
with the aforesaid conclusion of the Court in the aforesaid case. Having said
so it was further held that if it is ultimately found that there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or there is no defect in
the vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of other
parties/agencies then on that finding the claim would go out of Section 110 of
the Act because the case would become exclusive negligence of Railways and
again if the accident had arisen only on account of the negligence of persons
other than the driver/ owner of the motor vehicle the claim would not be maintainable
before the Tribunal. It is this observation of the Court in the aforesaid case
which is strongly relied upon by Mrs. Indira Sawhney , the learned counsel
appearing for the Railway Administration and it is this observation with which
the two learned Judges hearing the appeal did not prima facie agree with for
which the reference has been made to this larger Bench.
The
question that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether an application
filed before a Claims Tribunal for compensation in respect of accidents
involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of Motor
Vehicle and the claim is made both against the insurer, owner and driver of the
motor vehicle as well as the other joint tortfeasors, if a finding on hearing
is reached that it is solely the negligence of the joint tortfeasor and not the
driver of the Motor Vehicle then would the Tribunal loose the jurisdiction to
award compensation against the joint tortfeasor. It is not disputed, and as has
been already held by this court in the case of Union of India vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra) that a claim for compensation on account of the
accident arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle could be filed before a
Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act not only against the owner or
insurer of the Motor Vehicle but also against another joint tortfeasor
connected with the accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged. A
combined reading of Section 110, 110-A, which deal with the Constitution of one
or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and application for compensation
arising out of an accident, as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 110
unequivocally indicates that Claims Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to
entertain application for compensation both by the persons injured or legal
representatives of the deceased when the accident arose out of the use of Motor
Vehicle. The crucial expression conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims
Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is the accident arising out
of use of Motor Vehicle, and therefore, if there has been a collision between
the Motor Vehicle and Railway train then all those persons injured or died
could make application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal not only against
the owner, driver or insurer of the Motor Vehicle but also against the Railway
Administration. Once such an application is held to be maintainable and the
Tribunal entertains such an application, if in course of enquiry the Tribunal
comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasor connected with the
accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the Motor Vehicle
then the Tribunal cannot be held to be denuded of its jurisdiction which it had
initially. In other words, in such a case also the Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal would be entitled to award compensation against the other joint tortfeasor,
and in the case in hand, it would be fully justified to award compensation
against the Railway Administration if ultimately it is held that it was the
sole negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. To denude the
Tribunal of its jurisdiction on a finding that the driver of the Motor Vehicle
was not negligent, would cause undue hardship to every claimant and we see no
justification to interpret the provisions of the Act in that manner. The
jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for compensation flows
from the provisions contained in Section 110-A read with sub-section (1) of
Section 110. Once the jurisdiction is invoked and is exercised the said
jurisdiction cannot be divested of on any subsequent finding about the
negligence of the tortfeasor concerned. It would be immaterial if the finding
is arrived at that it is only other joint tortfeasor who was negligent in causing
accident and not the driver of the Motor Vehicle. In our considered opinion the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for claim of compensation
in respect of an accident arising out of the use of Motor Vehicle depends
essentially on the fact whether there had been any use of Motor Vehicle and
once that is established the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to be
ousted on a finding being arrived at at a later point of time that it is the
negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the Motor
Vehicle in question. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the
conclusion of the Court in the case of Union of India vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) to the effect "It is ultimately found that there
is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or there is no defect
in the vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of the other
parties/agenncies, then on that finding, the claim would go out of Section
110(1) of the Act because the case would then become one of the exclusive
negligence of Railways. Again if the accident had arisen only on account of the
negligence of persons other than the driver/owner of the motor vehicle, the
claim would not be maintainable before the Tribunal" is not correct in law
and to that extent the aforesaid decision must be held to have not been
correctly decided.
In the
aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment of
the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court requiring interference of this
Court. These appeals fail and are dismissed.
................J.
(G.B.
PATTANAIK) ................J.
(S.N.
PHUKAN) .J.
(S.N.
VARIAVA) March 07, 2002.
Back