Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI:- These appeals raise a question of some importance from the point of view of Insurance Companies which insure motor vehicles against third party risks and more so, from the point of view of the general public which, by reason of the increasing hazards of undisciplined and fast moving traffic, is driven in despair to lodge claims for injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents. In case of air accidents, the injured and the dependents of the deceased receive, without contest, fairly large sums by way of compensation from the Air Corporations. We have still to awaken to the need to evolve a reasonably comparable method for compensating those who receive injuries or die in road or train accidents. The victims of road accidents or their dependents are driven to wage a long and unequal battle against the Insurance Companies, which deny their liability on every conceivable ground and indulge in an ingenious variety of factual disputations from who was driving the vehicle to whose negligence was the sine qua non of the accident. The delay in the final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes of litigation, takes the sting out of the laws of compensation because, an infant child who seeks compensation as a dependent of his deceased father has often to await the attainment of majority in order to see the colorer of the money. Add to that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of the rupee: Compensation demanded say, ten years ago, is less than quarter of its value when it is received today. We do hope that the Government will apply itself seriously and urgently to this problem and find a satisfactory method of ameliorating the woes of victims of road accidents.

2. We have just talked of delay and it is just as well that we begin by saying that the accident out of which these proceedings arise happened on February 1, 1966. A collision took place between a motor car No. GJY 4973 and a goods truck No. G 4123, at about 8-30 P. M. On Naroda Road, Ahmedabad, as a result of which Ajit Sinh, who was driving the car died instantaneously and Jadavji Keshavji Modi, who was travelling in the car, sustained injuries. The truck was insured against third party risk with the appellant, the Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd.

3. The appellant had then an office in Ahmedabad but it ultimately merged with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay. Respondents 1 (a) to 1 (g), who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Ajit Sinh, filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under S. 110-D of the M. V. Act 4 of 1939, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000 for his death. Jadavji Modi filed a separate application asking for compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal dismissed both the applications by a common judgment dated June 20, 1968 on the ground that respondent No. 3 could not be said to have been driving the truck rashly and negligently at the time of the accident.

4. Jadavji Modi and respondents 1 (a) to 1 (g) filed separate appeals in the Gujarat High Court from the judgment of the Tribunal, being First Appeals Nos. 1202 of 1969 and 696 of 1971 respectively. These appeals were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment dated September 30, 1976. The hearing proceeded, both before the Tribunal and the High Court, on the basis that the truck was used for carrying goods. The High Court allowed the appeals, awarding a compensation of Rs. 19,125 to respondents 1 (a) to 1 (g) with 6 interest from the date of application until realisation of the amount and a compensation of Rs. 10,000 with similar interest to Jadavji Modi. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court.

5. This Court by its order dated April 18, 1978 granted special leave to the appellant to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, limited to the question relating to the construction of S. 95