TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) MOTOR Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, has dismissed M. V. C. No. 573/1996 filed by the claimants-appellants herein for payment of compensation on the ground that the accident resulting in the death of late Sri H. Sanjeeva was not attributable to any fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle in which he was travelling nor did the same arise out of the use of any motor vehicle. The present appeal filed by the claimants assails the correctness of the said order.

( 2 ) THE deceased Sri H. Sanjeeva was working as Head Masterin the Government High School at Sooda in Dakshina Kannada. On 7. 4. 1995 he was traveling in a bus owned by the respondent- corporation from Udupi to Bangalore in connection with certain official business. When the bus reached a place near Gandhi Farm on the Kunigal-Bangalore road at about 6. 45 a. m. , a Banyan tree growing on the side of the road fell on the running bus resulting in the death of the Sri Sanjeeva and two other passengers travelling in the same. A claim petition for payment of compensation was originally filed by the widow, minor, children and the parents of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the tribunal at Bangalore. The said petition was subsequently amended so as to make a claim for compensation on no fault basis in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim was opposed by the respondent-Corporation giving rise to the following five issues:"1. Whether the petitioners prove that H. Sanjeeva died in motor vehicle accident which occurred on 7. 8. 1995 at 6. 45 a. m. on Kunigal Bangalore road while he was travelling in KSRTC bus bearing Regn. No. KA-01-F-1164? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that this petition is maintainable in law?

( 3 ) WHETHER the petitioners prove that they are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount?

( 4 ) WHETHER the respondent proves that it is not liable to pay compensation as the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving by its driver?

( 5 ) WHAT order or award?"3. While the widow of the deceased appeared in support of the claim petition, the Corporation examined the driver of the bus in rebuttal. By its judgment and order dated 4. 7. 1998 impugned in this appeal, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. It has while dealing with issues 1 to 4 come to the conclusion that the accident in question had not arisen out of the use of the vehicle owned by the Corporation. The accident was according to the tribunal as a result of vis major for which neither the driver of the bus nor the owner thereof could be held responsible. The claim for payment of compensation was on those findings dismissed as already mentioned above. 4. Appearing for the appellants, Mrs. Vatsala Sampath, strenuously argued that the view taken by the Tribunal was palpably erroneous. She contended that the Tribunal had totally misunderstood the expression "arising out of the use of motor vehicle" appearing in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and ignored the legislative object behind the introduction of the said provisions. She argued that the 1994 amendment of the Motor vehicle Act by which Section 163-A was added to the statute book was intended to ensure speedy disposal of claims arising out of the motor vehicle accidents. Proof of fault in cases that qualified for determination under Section 163-A was by reason of the language employed in the Section made unnecessary. The victim of a road accident or his legal representatives could therefore claim compensation in accordance with the structured formula given in the II Schedule to Section 163-A supra upon proof of the fact that the accident had arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle. The accident in question was according to the learned counsel clearly referable to the use of the motor vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. The only condition required to be satisfied for maintaining a claim or award of compensation und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document