Liability Of Insurer Invited Due To "Involvement" Of Vehicle In Accident, Not Negligence Of Driver Per Se: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently while dealing with a matter related to compensation in a motor accident act claim observed that negligence of the driver is not, per se, the reason for inviting liability by such a vehicle. The observation came from Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, who observed that it is the 'use of vehicle' on the road, which per se, invites liability for the owner of the vehicle; and thus it is for the insurer; to pay compensation; in case the vehicle is involved in accident: "Under section 165 the Tribunals are required to be constituted for adjudication of claims of compensation arising from the 'use of a vehicle' and not necessarily arising from the negligence of driver of such vehicle. Section 166 also enables filing of claims in case of accidents covered by section 165, i.e., not necessarily arising from the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore it is the 'use of vehicle' on the road, which per se, invites liability for the owner of the vehicle; and thus for the insurer; to pay compensation; in case the vehicle is involved in accident. Negligence of the driver is not, per se, the reason for inviting liability by such a vehicle. Hence it is strict liability attached to the vehicle as such." It noted that legislature in India has intentionally avoided adopting the 'negligence' per se; as a determinant to fix the locus of liability. The legislature has not even used the word 'negligence' in the chapters XI and XII of the Motor Vehicle Act, which make provisions relating to the compensation.The Court was dealing with five appeals filed by the Insurance company and cross objections filed by the claimants in a matter related to compensation in Motor Vehicle Act. The facts giving rise to the appeals are: that on 6 February, 2014 a family was going to Amritsar from Delhi in a Innova car. When they reached in the area between Pipli and Shahbad on the national highway, the truck/tanker which was going ahead of the Innova car, suddenly applied breaks. As a result, accident took place. In that accident the occupants of the Innova car received serious injuries. Four people died of injuries. The Surviving legal representatives filed an FIR. In the above said gamut of facts, four claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and the 5th was filed by the injured himself for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Notice was issued to insurance companies of both vehicles. The claimants examined the injured eye witness besides other relevant witnesses. The driving licence of the driver of Innova car - Amarjeet Singh was also produced in evidence. However, no evidence was led by either the driver and owner of the offending tanker or by the respondent Insurance company. Tribunal awarded compensation to all claimants. However, the respondent Insurance company, the Insurer of the tanker, was absolved by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver of the Innova car was required to maintain a safe distance, in which he failed. Therefore, the owner of the Innova car, and consequently, the appellant Insurance company, the insurer of the said Innova car, was held liable to make the payment. Challenging the said award, the appeals were filed by the Insurance company of the Innova car. Petitioner argued that the Tribunal went wrong in law in absolving the respondent Insurance company. The evidence led on the file categorically proves that it was the driver of the offending tanker who was negligent in driving the same. It was acclaimed that the eye witness has duly been examined to prove the assertions of the claimants. It was further said that the Tribunal has totally ignored the version of the eye witness and has proceeded only on assumption that there was no safe distance maintained by the driver of the Innova car. This is despite the fact that there is no evidence led on the file by the respondents even to show the fact that the driver of the Innova car was not maintaining safe distance. Lastly, it was argued that the liability of the appellant Insurance company was not even in issue as per the issues framed by the Tribunal. The respondent Insurance Company of the tanker has never claimed the liability to be of the appellant Insurance company; as such. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. The liability of the entire amount deserves to be imposed upon the respondent Insurance company, the insurer of the offending tanker. Respondent argued that as per the Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 (in short 'the Regulations of 1989'), the driver of the Innova car was required to maintain a 'safe distance'. The Counsel for respondent argued that it was his sole liability to ensure that he maintains the sufficient distance so as to enable him to apply breaks and to stop his car; in case the tanker in front of him applied sudden...

Liability Of Insurer Invited Due To "Involvement" Of Vehicle In Accident, Not Negligence Of Driver Per Se: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Zeb Hasan

Tags