Case: A.Sridhar Vs. United India Ins.Co.Ltd

H.L. Dattu, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madras, Chennai in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1779 of 2002, wherein, the Court has allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (for short, “the Tribunal”) from `1,60,000/- to `25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”). 3. In the Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant has stated that on 14.01.1998, at about 7.10 PM, while he was riding the motor cycle along with a pillion rider, the vehicle met with an accident due to oil spill on the road and suffered grievous injuries. Since the vehicle is insured with the respondent-Insurance Company, he is entitled for compensation of `6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) as general damages/compensation. 4. The Insurance Company has denied its liability. The Tribunal, while considering the claim of the appellant, has come to the conclusion that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligence driving of the claimant but due to oil spilling on the road. Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable to the claimant at a sum of `1,60,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum under the Insurance Policy.5. In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court, has taken exception to the order passed by the Tribunal and has come to the conclusion that the Tribunal is not justified in allowing the claim petition moved under Section 166 of the Act and ought to have determined the compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court has modified the award and has reduced the compensation payable to `25,000/-.6. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, the claimant is before us in this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the evidence on record, the Tribunal holds that the appellant, while driving the motor vehicle on the fateful day, met with an accident not because of the fault of the owner of the vehicle or because of the fault of the other vehicle, but because of the oil spill on the road. Therefore, the negligence can be attributable only on the person who was driving the vehicle and hence, is not entitled to compensation under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the High Court was justified in invoking the beneficial legislation and in directing the Insurance Company to pay limited amount by way of compensation to the injured person of an accident arising out of the use of a motor cycle on the basis of “no fault liability,” since the accident has arisen out of use of motor vehicle and has resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the evidence on record, the Tribunal holds that the appellant, while driving the motor vehicle on the fateful day, met with an accident not because of the fault of the owner of the vehicle or because of the fault of the other vehicle, but because of the oil spill on the road. Therefore, the negligence can be attributable only on the person who was driving the vehicle and hence, is not entitled to compensation under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the High Court was justified in invoking the beneficial legislation and in directing the Insurance Company to pay limited amount by way of compensation to the injured person of an accident arising out of the use of a motor cycle on the basis ofsince the accident has arisen out of use of motor vehicle and has resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant.