Establishing actionable negligence on the part of the driver is a prerequisite for maintaining an action under Sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THE appellant was first respondent in m. V. C. No. 30 of 1976 before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar Kannada, karwar and being aggrieved by the award passed in the said case to pay compensation of Rs. 21,552/- to the claimant therein, has filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE claim petition itself has beenpresented in somewhat unusual circumstances. The very case put forward by the claimant is that he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. MEW 5144 belonging to the appellant herein on 10-1-1976 (incorrectly mentioned in the course of the petition and judgment as 11-1-1976} and that it met with an accident in between milestone No. 36/3, 36/4 and 36/5 at Subguli and Sunkasal, Ankola taluk and that the petitioner-claimant was driving the truck at that time in the employment of the owner. Nowhere in the course of the petition, claimant has stated that the vehicle was being driven by anyona else and muchless that it was being driven rashly or negligently. Even in the course of his examination before the Tribunal he has put forward the case that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. After the parties went to trial, the Tribunal has recorded its finding that the petitioner claimant was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. No attempt could be made by anyone before us also, to dislodge this finding of the Tribunal.

( 3 ) IN view of these undisputed facts,it appears to us, that it is quite unnecessary to refer to any other facts mentioned in the petition and in the objection statement and also dealt extensively by the tribunal.

( 4 ) IT appears to us that none of theparties including the Tribunal was aware of tha real position in law for instituting a case under Section 110 of the Motor vehicles Act (for short 'the Act' ). It may be remembered that Sec. 110 of the Act doss not create an independent right for any person to claim compensation before the Tribunal. It creates only a special forum and a cheaper and expeditious remedy for a victim of motor vehicle accident to pursue a remedy available to him under common law and the law of torts. Therefore, the claimant in a case of this kind has to allege and establish actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and only in that event he could hold the owner of the vehicle vicariously responsible for the actionable negligence on the part of his driver. This position in law is too well settled to require any citation of any authority. But anyway, as, even the Tribunal has proceeded in utter ignorance of this aspect of the law, we may make useful reference to a few decisions in this regard.

( 5 ) IN the decision of the Supremecourt in Minu B. Mehta v Balkrishna ramchandra Nayan (1977 ACJ 118 at 127), it has been observed as follows :"the Claims Tribunal is a tribunal constituted by the State Government for expenditious disposal of the motorclaims. The general law applicable is only common law and the law of torts. If under the law a person becomes legally liable then the person suffering the injuries is entitled to be compensated and the tribunal is authorised to determine the amount of compensation which appears to be just. The plea that the Claims tribunal is entitled to award compensation which appears to be just when it is satisfied on proof of injury to a third party arising out of the use of a vehicle on a public place without proof of negligence if accepted would lead to strange results. "this Court has also consistently been taking the view that establishment of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is the very foundation for maintaining an action under Sec. 110 of the Act. In Seethamma and Others v benedict D'sa (A. I. R. 1967 Mysore, 11) it has been pointed out that actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle must be established and the proposition that the burden of proof to establish the same is entirely upon the claimants is unexceptionable. Even in