Motor Accident Compensation: Supreme Court Partially Allows Relief Under Section 140 of MV Act

The case of Nishan Singh & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. revolves around a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the High Court erred in affirming the dismissal of a compensation claim due to the alleged negligent driving of the deceased’s vehicle. The Court ultimately ruled that while the appellants were not entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), they were eligible for limited relief under Section 140 of the Act.

The appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Balvinder Kaur, filed a claim against the owner and insurer of the truck involved in the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and the High Court held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased’s vehicle rather than the truck driver. The Supreme Court upheld this finding but granted compensation under the no-fault liability provision of the MV Act.

Background of the Case

On November 28, 2010, Balvinder Kaur was traveling with her husband and relatives in a Maruti car from her matrimonial home to their village. The accident occurred when their car collided with a truck. The claimants alleged that the truck driver suddenly applied brakes in the middle of the road, leading to the accident and causing the death of Balvinder Kaur.

The appellants filed a claim before the MACT, asserting that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck. They sought compensation for the loss of the deceased, who was claimed to have been earning Rs. 10,000 per month from a dairy business.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Nishan Singh & Ors.)

The appellants contended that:

• The truck driver was responsible for the accident as he applied sudden brakes without warning.
• The charge sheet filed by the police supported their claim.
• The deceased was the sole breadwinner, and her family was facing financial hardship.
• The Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding that the Maruti car driver was negligent.

Respondents’ Arguments (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.)

The respondents argued that:

• The accident occurred due to the negligence of the Maruti car driver, who failed to maintain a safe distance.
• The truck driver was not driving rashly or negligently, and the car rear-ended the truck due to its high speed.
• The claimants failed to implead the owner and driver of the Maruti car, which was a necessary party to the case.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented before the MACT and the High Court:

• The site plan showed that the road was only 14 feet wide, making it unlikely that the truck was moving at a high speed.
• The Maruti car was following the truck at a very close distance of 10-15 feet, violating safe driving norms.
• The Tribunal and High Court rightly held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Maruti car driver.
• The charge sheet alone was not sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the truck driver.

Key Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The evidence clearly indicates that the Maruti car driver failed to maintain a safe distance from the truck ahead. The Tribunal’s finding that the accident was caused by the Maruti car driver’s negligence is supported by the record.”

However, the Court also noted that under Section 140 of the MV Act, compensation is payable on a no-fault basis. It stated:

“Even though the appellants have failed to establish negligence on the part of the truck driver, they are entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal concerning liability under Section 166 but granted relief under Section 140 of the MV Act. It ruled:

“The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants as compensation under Section 140 of the Act, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.”

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies the application of contributory negligence and no-fault liability in motor accident cases. While the claimants could not prove negligence on the truck driver’s part, they were granted limited compensation under Section 140. The judgment underscores the importance of safe driving practices and the need for maintaining proper distance between vehicles on the road.

Petitioner Name: Nishan Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 27-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Nishan Singh & Ors. vs Oriental Insurance C Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Negligence Claims
See all petitions in Motor Vehicle Act
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category