Friday 30 September 2016

Whether government can be held liable For Accidents in Public Roads Since Road Tax Is Levied By It?

  It is a fact that motor vehicles are dangerous in nature by its

speed as well as by its working mechanism. Two wheelers cannot be

considered as a luxury now. Even small young families travelling upon

two wheelers is a common sight on the roads.           This single track

vehicles are highly pron to accident. Its dynamics of motion is highly

complicated. It is the vehicle of the poor as well as the rich, but at the

same time risk due to accident attached to the same is very high. Roads

are provided by the Government to ply the vehicles. There are different

kinds of motor vehicles including the motor bikes, where the owner

will be riding the same on the public roads provided by the

Government without any personal insurance coverage. Use and allied



aspects of a motor vehicle are covered by the Motor Vehicles Act. As

per the provision, personal injury coverage is not compulsory. Roads

to ply the vehicles are provided and maintained by the Government.

Under such a circumstance, there will be a welfare state liability for

the Government, which will partially eclipse the maxim volunti non fit

injuria and fault liability theory. Liability of the Government can be

made limited. But the Government cannot elude from its limited

liability in a case of accident occurring in a public road, where road tax


is levied by the Government. Government can either shoulder it by


itself or can fasten upon the authorised insurance company by


statutorily making the company liable over and above the liability of


the insured when they indemnify i.e., at the moment they are entering


into an insurance contract as required under Chapter XI of the Motor


Vehicles Act, they should be made statutorily liable for the welfare state


liability. An appropriate change in the statute that will make the


Government/the insurer liable for a fixed sum, as in the case of Section


140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, payable to the owner in case of


injury/death is the need of the day.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

    

     FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

                    MACA.No. 2102 of 2013 
                    



          L.MINI, 
Vs
      GIREESHKUMAR,
        PRESENT:

            MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
                                &
       MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
                   
       This appeal is filed by the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.37/2011 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam against its

dismissal. They are the wife, children and mother of one Biju who died

in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.03.2010 at about 5.30 p.m.

It is the case of the appellants that deceased Biju was the owner of the

motor bike involved in the accident and he was travelling as its pillion

rider. At the time of accident, the bike was driven by one Gireesh

Kumar. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the

second respondent in the claim petition. The claim petition was moved

against the rider of the motor bike as well as the insurance company.

The claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the deceased is not

a third party and he is the insured himself.


      2.    When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel

for the appellants raised the following points for the consideration of

this court:

     1)The rider being the primary tort feasor, what will be his

       liability to the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the

       vehicle involved in the accident?

     2)An additional premium of Rs.50/- was collected by the

       Insurance company and there is a personal coverage upto

       Rs.1,00,000/- which was not considered by the Tribunal

       and whether such a claim can be agitated before the

       Tribunal?

      3.    Though the specific allegation of the claimants in the claim

petition was that the accident in question had occurred due to the

negligence of the first respondent he remained exparte before the

Tribunal.   Inspite of receipt of notice he has not chosen to enter

appearance and resit this appeal. It assumes relevance, in view of the

fact that even while dismissing the claim petition as per the impugned

judgment the Tribunal returned a definite finding as against the first



issue formulated for consideration viz., 'at whose fault the accident and

death of Shri. Biju took place' that it was at the fault of the first

respondent that the accident and death of Shri. Biju took place.

Evidently, the 2nd respondent alone contested the matter before the

Tribunal. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal the fact that

the motorcycle involved in the accident was insured with the National

Insurance Company was admitted.             However, the liability was

disowned citing the ground that the deceased was not a third party but

he was its insured owner. The fact that a personal accident coverage

for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the insured/owner-cum-

driver was also admitted thereunder. But, it was further stated that as

the deceased was not the rider of the vehicle at the time of the accident

and also that no additional premium was collected to cover any other

task. Incidentally, the allegation that the accident was caused due to the

rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle was also denied. Evidently,

relying on Exts.A1 to A6 particularly Ext.A2 final report laid against

the first respondent under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal

Code and based on the failure of the respondents to adduce any rebuttal



evidence the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the

negligence on the part of the first respondent. Despite such adverse

finding the second respondent also did not file any cross objection in

this appeal against the said finding. In the decision in New India

Assurance Co. Ltd v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] a Division

Bench of this Court held that production of the final report would

prima facie sufficient evidence to prove negligence as regards a

claimant, in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. In the said circumstances there is absolutely no reason to

interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident in which

Shri. Biju died occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent.

      4.     Ext.B1 and Exts.B1(a) are policy and policy details. The

above said documents reveal that an additional premium of Rs.50/- was

accepted by the insurance company and there is a liability to the extent

of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal injury/death of the insured.

       5.   The case in hand is an application filed under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case of the appellants' counsel is that as

the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the vehicle,



the rider who is arrayed as the first respondent in the claim petition is

liable to pay compensation to the pillion rider who lost his life in the

accident.

      6.     It is the law of tort to determine when the law will and will

not grant redress for damage suffered. It is a fact that the pillion rider

died in the motor vehicle accident. It is also a fact that while first

respondent was riding the vehicle, vehicle capsized and thereby the

rider of the bike caused the accident and in that accident the deceased

sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

      7.    It is now an admitted fact that motor vehicles are basically

dangerous in nature. That is the reason why restrictions and conditions

to use the same are introduced by an enactment. Obsolete old Act

concerning use of motor vehicles was changed by the introduction of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The decisions like Manjusri Raha and

Ors. v. B.L.Gupta ( 1977) 2 SCR 944) and                Motor Owners'

Insurance Company Limited v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Ors.

( AIR 1981 SC 2059) paved way for bringing the new Act in 1988 and

amendment brought in 1994. When such an article is brought by the



deceased, naturally a strict liability is also attached to it. Whenever an

accident occurs by such a vehicle, by strict liability principle, the owner

will be liable, over and above the vicarious liability, if any. Surely, the

case in hand is a peculiar case where the legal heirs of the deceased

owner is turning towards the rider. In this case, there is nothing on

record to show as to what was the nature of the relationship between

the deceased and the rider of the two wheeler to determine the tortious

liability of the latter in the matter of death of the former due to his

negligent riding of the two wheeler belonging to the former. There is

nothing before this court to arrive at a conclusion regarding the nature

of the entrustment of the vehicle to the first respondent. The only data

available is that he was riding the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Whatever may the nature of the entrustment, it can be said that there is

an implied agreement to the effect that rider agreed to ride the vehicle

and took the risk naturally attached to the motor vehicle while riding

the same. When the accident occurred while riding such a vehicle, the

primary tort feasor will be the rider of the vehicle, whereas the owner

also will be burdened with the tortious liability due to the vicarious



liability as well as strict liability principle. Here the victim is none

other than the insured owner of the offending vehicle. Since, owner is

the person who brought the vehicle, he will not have any cause of

action.

       8.   In the light of the above discussion, it can be seen that the

owner of the vehicle cannot fasten any liability on the rider on the

basis of fault liability principle as the vehicle itself is a dangerous one,

and its riding is also attached with high risk for the reasons stated

hereinafter as well.

        9.  Ordinarily, when the driver of a vehicle is an employee of

its owner, then there will be vicarious liability on the owner of the

vehicle for the negligence of the employee. But in this case, it can be

seen that there is nothing to show that the driver Gireesh Kumar was

an employee of the deceased. It is also to be remembered that the

vehicle involved is only a two wheeler. Ordinarily, there will be an

employer-employee relationship in between the owner and the rider and

it will be imprudent to presume any such relationship as relates a two

wheeler.    From the available facts, it can be only held that there was



entrustment as stated above to drive the two wheeler. While driving so,

the accident occurred. It is a case where the vehicle capsized. While

considering the motor vehicle accident pertaining to a two wheeler,

wherein the vehicle capsized, it cannot be positively said that a

reasonable caution was not taken by the rider because it can be seen

that it is a single track vehicle and keeping it upright itself need

balancing. The dynamics of its motion is highly complicated and

therefore such a vehicle may capsize due to various reasons. As long as

positive evidence in this regard is lacking, it cannot be positively said

that there was lack of the required care and caution on the side of the

rider of the vehicle rather such a high degree of negligence on his part

so as to make him liable to the owner. The case law in this aspect is

Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co.Ltd ( 1957 (AC)555.

Even that case law has now become obsolete in England where it was

developed. But there are instances in India while considering tortious

liability, the Courts directing the Government to recover the amount

from the concerned officer, when the Government is made liable to pay

compensation. But in such cases also there must be flagrant violation


of law or duty cast upon         the officer. Such an aspect cannot be

attributed in this case. If that is so, it cannot be said that the rider of the

vehicle is primarily liable in a case like this.      Thus, a fault liability

cannot be fastened on the rider.

       10.   Tortious liability based upon fault liability thereon will not

be applicable in a case like this for the reasons stated above. When the

deceased was the owner of the vehicle involved which was brought by

him knowingly that it may cause accident if not dealt cautiously and

when he is voluntarily riding upon the same and when the respondent

rider was riding the same as authorised by him, it can be seen that the

rider cannot be made liable for any compensation or fastened with

liability as long as the accident was caused by any unintentional act of

the rider of the bike.       Thus, the rider will not be liable to pay

compensation to the deceased. The legal heirs are entitled to claim

compensation in a legal fiction as if stepping into the shoes of the

deceased at the moment of death along with their own rights. If that is

so, when the deceased got no right to claim compensation from the

rider, the claimants will also automatically get no right to claim so.



Thus, the claim against the rider of the vehicle will fail.

       11.   The Motor Vehicles Act now in force projects two other

provisions under which a claim for compensation can be made. That

are Section 140, 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 140 of the

Motor Vehicles Act is the only section founded on no fault theory i.e.

there the claimant will be entitled for compensation irrespective of the

fact that his fault or not, caused the accident. The proviso to Section

168 of the Motor Vehicles Act enables claimant to file a composite

application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

       12.   But there the liability is cast upon the owner of the vehicle

involved in the accident. Here none other than the legal heirs of the

deceased owner are the claimants.

       13.   In a death claim, an affiction is therein that the person who

sustained injury and death who can put forward the claim if alive is

fusing with the claim of the other legal heirs of the deceased after death

i.e. the claim for special damages that can be only put forward by the

deceased is also passing over to the legal heirs as if the claim is made



by the deceased himself.

       14.    Section 140 is categoric that the person who is liable to pay

the compensation is the owner of the vehicle. Thus, it can be seen that

the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased owner are not

entitled for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

which is the only provision under which a claim can be made for no

fault liability.

       15.    Sections 163 Aof the Motor Vehicles Act is akin to Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles At, which is also based upon fault liability.

By analysing Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court

held in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sinitha [2011 (4) KLT

821 (SC)] that " when compensation is high, it is legitimate that the

insurance company is not fastened with liability when the offending

vehicle suffered a "fault" ( "wrongful act", "neglect", or "defect")

under a valid Act only policy. Even the instant process of reasoning,

leads to the inference, that Section 163A of the Act is founded under

the "fault liability principle". There also the statutory liability is on the

owner of the motor vehicle insured with the authorized insurance



company. That section also will not be applicable in a case like this.

      16.  The next point to be considered is regarding the liability of

the insurance company. It is a contractual liability. Their liability will

be only that of the insured. Virtually, the insurer is only indemnifying

the insured-owner. The deceased is the insured herein. Thus, there will

be no statutory liability upon them pertaining to Section 147 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, where third party claim against the insured/owner

need be indemnified. Being one of the two parties to the contract of

insurance the insured-owner cannot be regarded as a third party.

      17.  The appellants got a case that additional premium of

Rs.50/- was levied and there is a coverage of personal injury/death. We

have verified the insurance policy and found that there is a personal

coverage to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Then the question will be that

whether the said claim can be agitated before a Tribunal. Section 165

of the Motor Vehicles Act states as follows :

            "165. Claims Tribunals - (1) A State Government

       may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one

       or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in


       this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area

       as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of

       adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of

       accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to,

       persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or

       damages to any property of a third party so arising, or

       both."

      18.   A careful reading of the above section will reveal that a

claim for personal injury is not barred by the above said section even

by the owner of the vehicle. It is true that by virtue of Section 147 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, the statutory liability of the insurance company

pertains only to third party claim. But it cannot be said in the light of

the said section, the claim of the owner against the insurance company

or any other person in respect of death or bodily injury will not lie,

though the cause of action arose out of a motor vehicle accident. This

aspect was considered       by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in

Smt.Kunti Ahirwar and Ors. v. State ( AIR 2007 MADHYA

PRADESH 82) and concluded in the last portion of paragraph 12 as



follows :

                " In the case at hand, it is patent, personal

          insurance policy was taken by the owner to cover

          his own risk.        The liability is limited to

          Rs.1,00,000/-. We fail to fathom why the Accident

          Claims Tribunal cannot entertain the same and the

          legal representatives should be asked to approach

          any other legal forum.          Thus, the issue of

          maintainability raised by Mr.Nair is not acceptable

          and we have no hesitation in repelling the same."




      19.   In Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd [(2004) 8 SCC

553], in paragraphs 8 and 10, it is held as follows :

             "8.  Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability

       incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily

       injury to any person (including an owner of the goods

       or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or

       damage to any property of a third party caused by or


     arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does

     not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for

     death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.

       

           10. In this case, it has not been shown that the

     policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself.

     We are unable to accept the contention that the premium

     of Rs. 4,989/- paid under the heading "Own damage" is

     for covering liability towards personal injury. Under the

     heading "Own damage", the words "premium on vehicle

     and non-electrical accessories" appear. It is thus clear

     that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and

     not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a

     vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident

     insurance has been taken out. In this case, there is no

     such insurance."

    20.   The above said decision is followed in Oriental Insurance

Co.Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha [(2007) 9 SCC 263).            From the above



decisions, it can be seen that in a case of payment of additional

premium it will entitle the owner of the vehicle to make a claim before

the Tribunal when he sustained personal injury and covered by the

above said payment of premium. In this case, it can be seen that an

additional premium of Rs.50/- is seen paid. If the injured can make the

claim, much less to say, the legal heirs can put forward the claim before

the Tribunal. Death is not disputed. Thus, the Insurance Company will

be liable to that much amount covered by the policy.                   The

quantification of the compensation is not warranted as this is a case of

death. The limit of compensation is as Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh

only). We hereby direct the insurance company to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to

the claimants which shall be apportioned in between the claimants in

equal shares.     The amount will bear 8% interest from the date of

petition till payment.

      21.     Before parting with this case, it is pertinent to note that as

the law now stands when an accident occurs if there is no personal

insurance coverage taken by the owner, in a case of death, the

dependents will not be getting any amount. As back as in 1977 the



Honourable Apex Court sounded a warning in Manjusri Raha's case

(supra), wherein it is stated as follows :

              " With the emergence of an ultra modern age

       which has led to strides of progress in all spheres

       of life, we have switched from fast to faster

       vehicular traffic which has come as a boon to

       many, though some times in the case of some it has

       to be proved to be a misfortune---- The time is ripe

       for serious consideration of creating no-fault

       liability. Having regard to the directive principles

       of State policy, the poverty of the ordinary run of

       victims of automobile accidents, the compulsory

       nature of insurance of motor vehicles, the

       nationalisation of general insurance companies and

       the expanding trends towards nationalisation of

       bus transport, the law of torts based on no-fault

       needs reform."

     22.    It is also relevant to quote a passage from the decision in



Motor Owners' Insurance Company Limited's case (supra), which

reads as follows :

                  "There is a niggardly recognition of the

         State's obligation to its people particularly so when

         the frequency of accidents involving the public

         transport system has increased beyond believable

         limits."

      23.   It is a fact that motor vehicles are dangerous in nature by its

speed as well as by its working mechanism. Two wheelers cannot be

considered as a luxury now. Even small young families travelling upon

two wheelers is a common sight on the roads.           This single track

vehicles are highly pron to accident. Its dynamics of motion is highly

complicated. It is the vehicle of the poor as well as the rich, but at the

same time risk due to accident attached to the same is very high. Roads

are provided by the Government to ply the vehicles. There are different

kinds of motor vehicles including the motor bikes, where the owner

will be riding the same on the public roads provided by the

Government without any personal insurance coverage. Use and allied



aspects of a motor vehicle are covered by the Motor Vehicles Act. As

per the provision, personal injury coverage is not compulsory. Roads

to ply the vehicles are provided and maintained by the Government.

Under such a circumstance, there will be a welfare state liability for

the Government, which will partially eclipse the maxim volunti non fit

injuria and fault liability theory. Liability of the Government can be

made limited. But the Government cannot elude from its limited

liability in a case of accident occurring in a public road, where road tax

is levied by the Government. Government can either shoulder it by

itself or can fasten upon the authorised insurance company by

statutorily making the company liable over and above the liability of

the insured when they indemnify i.e., at the moment they are entering

into an insurance contract as required under Chapter XI of the Motor

Vehicles Act, they should be made statutorily liable for the welfare state

liability. An appropriate change in the statute that will make the

Government/the insurer liable for a fixed sum, as in the case of Section

140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, payable to the owner in case of

injury/death is the need of the day. This aspect needs due attention and



we fervently hope and wish that it will gain deserving attention from

the concerned.

     Thus, this appeal is partly allowed as stated above. There will be

no order as to costs.




                                     C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE




                                  K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE




Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment