- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Surender Kumar Arora And Another v. Manoj Bisla And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The claimants—the parents of a deceased medical doctor—filed a compensation petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after their son died while traveling in a vehicle driven by Respondent 1, a friend of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi, found on the basis of Respondent 1’s testimony that the vehicle was not driven rashly or negligently and, therefore, dismissed the claim against the insurer. The Delhi High Court, in MAC Appeal No. 408 of 2009, affirmed the Tribunal’s decision. The present appeal challenges those concurrent findings before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation from the respondent Insurance Company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the absence of proof that the vehicle was driven rashly or negligently by Respondent 1.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The Tribunal and the High Court erred in rejecting the claim petition despite the death occurring while the deceased was a passenger in the insured vehicle.
- Even though the petition was filed under Section 166, compensation should nonetheless be awarded because death occurred in the insured vehicle.
- Reliance placed on the Supreme Court’s observations in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9.
Respondent Insurance Company’s Arguments
- Because the claim was brought under Section 166, the burden lay entirely on the claimants to prove rash and negligent driving.
- No cogent evidence of negligence was produced; hence both lower courts rightly dismissed the claim.
- Cited Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428 to reinforce the distinction between claims under Sections 166 and 163-A and the corresponding burden of proof.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9 |
Compensation can be awarded without proof of negligence when claim is under Section 163-A (“no-fault” liability). | Court noted that the precedent would have aided appellants only if the petition had been filed under Section 163-A, which it was not. |
| Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428 |
Victims may choose Section 166 or Section 163-A; choosing Section 166 imposes burden to prove negligence. | Relied upon as the controlling authority; Court adopted its reasoning to reject the appeal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court re-examined the evidentiary record and concurred with both the Tribunal and the High Court that:
- The claim was admittedly filed under Section 166, not Section 163-A.
- Both the claimants and Respondent 1 testified that the vehicle was not being driven rashly or negligently at the time of the accident.
- Under Section 166, the burden squarely rests on the claimants to prove rash and negligent driving; failure to do so is fatal to the claim.
- The principles laid down in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal unequivocally govern the situation: opting for Section 166 requires proof of negligence, whereas Section 163-A would have allowed a “no-fault” claim.
- Because no negligence was established and the claim had not been brought under Section 163-A, no statutory basis existed to impose liability on the insurer.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court found no error in the decisions of the Tribunal or the High Court.
Implications: The dismissal leaves intact the concurrent findings that, in a Section 166 claim, compensation cannot be awarded without proof of negligence. The Court also directed that any interim compensation paid under Section 140 of the Act need not be recovered from the appellants. No new legal principle was established; rather, existing jurisprudence under Meena Variyal was reaffirmed.
Order
1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-6-2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Surendra Kumar Arora v. Manoj Bisla MAC Appeal No. 408 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi in Petition No. 176 of 2000 dated 29-4-2009.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”, for short), in a petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short), based on the evidence of the driver of the vehicle (Respondent 1 herein) has come to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the aforesaid finding and the conclusion, the Tribunal was of the view that the insurance company cannot be mulcted with the responsibility of paying the insurance amount to the parents of the deceased person.
3. Disturbed by the order so made by the Tribunal, the appellants had filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, keeping in view the settled distinction between the provisions of Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has come to the conclusion that it was for the parents of the deceased to have established that the vehicle was driven by Respondent 1 in a rash and negligent manner, which they have failed to do so before the Tribunal.
4. In order to appreciate the assertion of the appellants that the findings on facts arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse, the Court has also reappreciated the entire evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that it was not the case of the parents of the deceased that the vehicle in question was driven by Respondent 1 on the fateful day in a rash and negligent manner. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion and by applying the principles enunciated by this Court, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the parents of the deceased. The correctness or otherwise of the said order, is the subject-matter of the appeal before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the courts have committed a grave error in rejecting the claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, though the petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the parents of the deceased in view of the death of the deceased person who was travelling in the vehicle which was driven by Respondent 1. In aid of the submission, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the observations made by this Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9
6. The learned counsel Shri S.L Gupta, appearing for the respondent Insurance Company would submit that since the petition that was filed by the parents of the deceased person was under Section 166 of the Act, the entire responsibility of proving the act of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle was on the claimants and since that was not done by adducing cogent evidence, the courts below were justified in rejecting the claim petition filed by the appellant claimants under Section 166 of the Act. In aid of his submission, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the observations made by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the question that would arise for our consideration and decision is: whether the parents of the deceased are entitled to the payment of compensation under the provisions of the Act by the respondent Insurance Company? In order to answer the issue that we have framed for ourselves, the facts in brief requires to be noticed.
8. The claimants are the parents of the deceased person. The deceased was a doctor by profession. The deceased was travelling in the motor vehicle driven by Respondent 1, who happens to be a close associate/friend. It has come in the evidence of the claimants as well as Respondent 1 that the vehicle in question was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent 1.
9. Admittedly, the petition filed by the claimants was under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163-A of the Act. This is not in dispute. Therefore, it was the entire responsibility of the parents of the deceased to have established that Respondent 1 drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the fatal accident. Maybe, in order to help Respondent 1, the claimants had not taken up that plea before the Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court was justified in sustaining the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. We make it clear that if for any reason, the claimants had filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Act, then the dicta of this Court in Kaushnuma Begum (2001) 2 SCC 9 would have come to the assistance of the claimants.
10. In our view the issue that we have raised for our consideration is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 428 In the said decision the Court stated:
“27. … Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle.”
11. We are in agreement with the principles stated by this Court in the aforesaid decision.
12. In view of the above, in our opinion, neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has committed any error whatsoever which would call for our interference in the appeal filed by the parents of the deceased. Accordingly, we reject the appeal. However, we direct that the amount paid by the respondent Insurance Company by way of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act, shall not be recovered from the appellants by the respondent Insurance Company. No order as to costs.
13. Ordered accordingly.
Alert