Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
M. Rama Jois and S.R. Rajashekhara Murthy, JJ.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation —Appellant
Vs.
Reny Mammen and others —Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 356, 395 and 396 of 1989
Decided on : 31-08-1990
In a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle, the owners of all such vehicles are several tortfeasors and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct. Therefore, there should be apportionment of the compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 authorises and requires the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to make apportionment of the compensation as against each of the owners of such vehicles in proportion to the negligence of the driver of each of the vehicles.
Fact of the Case:
In these appeals presented under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against a common award on three claim petitions presented under section 110A of the Act, read with rule 343 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, the following important questions of law arise for consideration: 2. In the case of a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by the drivers of those vehicles : (A) Whether or not the owners of all such vehicles are several tortfeasors in that each owner is a separate tortfeasor and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct ? and whether or not there should be apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ? (B) Whether section 110B of the Act authorises and requires the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to make apportionment of the compensation as against each of the owners of such vehicles in proportion to the negligence of the driver of each of the vehicles ? 3. Further, the subsidiary questions which arise for consideration are : 4. Whether in a claim petition filed under section 110A of the Act claiming compensation for death caused or injury inflicted as a result of a motor accident in which more than one vehicle is involved : (A) It is not obligatory for the claimant to furnish the particulars of all the vehicles involved in the accident as also the names of owners and insurers of all the vehicles in Form No. 82 prescribed under the Rules ? (B) It is not obligatory for the Tribunal to direct issue of notice to the owners and insurers of all the vehicles in view of rule 346 of the Rules ? (C) Whether the period of limitation of six months prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 110A of the Act operates as a limitation for issuing notice to the owner and insurer or driver of a vehicle whose particulars were not furnished in the application filed in time and came to be furnished subsequently after the expiry of the period of six months ?
Finding of the Court:
In the case of a motor accident brought about by the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle resulting in the death of or injury to a person : (1) the driver and the owners of each of the vehicle are several tortfeasors and, therefore, in an application claiming compensation for death or injury to any person, filed under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the proportion of negligence of each of the drivers should be determined and apportionment of the total compensation as between or among the several tortfeasors, i.e., as between or among the owner and the insurer of each of the vehicles should be fixed by the Tribunal and as award should be made accordingly. (2) In an application filed under section 110A of the Act, in view of section 110B of the Act, it is obligatory for the Tribunal to determine the proportion of negligence of each of the drivers and to apportion the amount of compensation awarded as between or among the owners and insurers of the vehicles concerned and make an award accordingly and no part of the dispute can be allowed undecided. (3) It is the duty of the claimant making an application under section 110A of the Act, read with rule 343 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules and the prescribed Form No. 82, to furnish the registration number of every one of the vehicles involved in the accident as also the name of the owner and the insurer in all cases where the vehicle was insured and he cannot furnish only the registration number of the vehicle of his choice and the names of owner and insurer of such vehicle. If it is found in any given case that the applicant has not done so and it comes to light that in fact some other vehicles were also responsible for the accident, the application is not liable to be dismissed on the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties, but it is the duty of the Tribunal to call upon the parties to furnish the registration number of the vehicle/vehicles, the name of the owner and its insurer and issue notice to all of them, as required under rule 346 of the Rules and should, thereafter, make a full and complete adjudication of the application. When notice is issued to such owner after securing their names and addresses, after the expiry of the period fixed in sub-section (3) of section 110A, in an application filed within the time prescribed under that sub-section, they cannot plead the bar of limitation, for, sub-section (3) of section 110A prescribes the period of limitation only for filing an application and not for issuing notice to any other person whose presence is also necessary to make full and effective adjudication of the claims in terms of section 110B of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the owners of all such vehicles are several tortfeasors in that each owner is a separate tortfeasor and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct ? 2. Whether or not there should be apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ? 3. Whether section 110B of the Act authorises and requires the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to make apportionment of the compensation as against each of the owners of such vehicles in proportion to the negligence of the driver of each of the vehicles ?
Ratio Decidendi: The drivers of those vehicles who were responsible for the accident and on the principle of vicarious liability in torts of the master, the owners of all those vehicles are several tortfeasors and, therefore, their liability to pay compensation is in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers. Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 mandates the Tribunal not only to fix the proportion of negligence but also to apportion the compensation awarded.
Final Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The appeals in so far as they relate to the quantum of compensation fixed are dismissed; The award of the Tribunal in so far as it fixes the entire liability on the appellant is modified provisionally to the effect that the liability of the appellant shall be only to the extent of 50 per cent. of the compensation awarded; The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to a limited extent to decide the question of fixing the liability on the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. CNS 4319 after issuing notice to the owner of the said vehicle and after giving an opportunity of hearing to him, as also to the appellant and the claimants. All of them shall have the liberty of adducing additional evidence or to recall the witnesses already examined; If, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal were to record a finding that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle of the appellant and the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. CNS 4319 in equal proportion, the Tribunal shall pass an award against the owner of the lorry for the balance of the amount. If, after hearing the lorry owner, the proportion of negligence and/or the quantum of compensation is reduced, the benefit of reduction shall go only to the lorry owner and not to the appellant; If, after considering the evidence adduced by the owner of the lorry, the Tribunal were to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant alone, the Tribunal shall pass an order directing the appellant to pay the balance amount of compensation as already awarded in the order under appeal; If the respondents-claimants fail to furnish the name of the owner of the lorry and of the insurer of the lorry, if any, within one month from today, the directions given as above shall lapse and the award as provisionally modified by us shall become final. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on September 13, 1990, without any further notice by the Tribunal. A copy of this order together with records shall be despatched forthwith to the Tribunal.
Rama Jois, J.—In these appeals presented under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ("the Act" for short), against a common award on three claim petitions presented under section 110A of the Act, read with rule 343 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 ("the Rules" for short), the following important questions of law arise for consideration :
2. In the case of a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by the drivers of those vehicles :
(A) Whether or not the owners of all such vehicles are several tortfeasors in that each owner is a separate tortfeasor and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct ? and whether or not there should be apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ?
(B) Whether section 110B of the Act authorises and requires the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to make apportionment of the compensation as against each of the owners of such vehicles in proportion to the negligence of the driver of each of the vehicles ?
3. Further, the subsidiary questions which arise for consideration are :
4. Whether in a claim petition filed under section 110A of the Act claiming compensation for death caused or injury inflicted as a result of a motor accident in which more than one vehicle is involved :
(A) It is not obligatory for the claimant to furnish the particulars of all the vehicles involved in the accident as also the names of owners and insurers of all the vehicles in Form No. 82 prescribed under the Rules ?
(B) It is not obligatory for the Tribunal to direct issue of notice to the owners and insurers of all the vehicles in view of rule 346 of the Rules ?
(C) Whether the period of limitation of six months prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 110A of the Act operates as a limitation for issuing notice to the owner and insurer or driver of a vehicle whose particulars were not furnished in the application filed in time and came to be furnished subsequently after the expiry of the period of six months ?
5. The brief facts of the cases are these :
Three claim petitions were presented by three persons, namely, the respondents in each of the appeals on the following allegations : That, on July 27, 1984, at about 7 p.m. on Tumkur Road in the city of Bangalore, near Goverdhan talkies, a motor accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of a bus bearing registration No. MEF 827, belonging to the appellant as a result of which the claimants suffered injuries. Their claim petitions were registered as MVC Nos. 20 of 1985, 70 of 1985 and 125 of 1985. The claimant in MVC 20 of 1985 was a pillion rider on TVS 50 with his friend, Devendra M. Dube. According to the claimant, they were going from Peenya to Yeshwantpur and the TVS rider was going very slowly on the extreme left side of the road. The claimant in MVC No. 70 of 1985 was also a pillion rider with one Sri Srinivasa Balaram, who was the rider of Vijay Super scooter MEJ 2790 and was proceeding towards Yeshwantpur on Peenya road. The claimant in MVC No. 124 of 1985 was the rider of the said Vijay Super scooter. He was also proceeding to Yeshwantpur from Peenya. While the claimants were going towards Yeshwantpur, the bus belonging to the appellant-corporation, driven by its driver, M. Krishna, dashed against their vehicles and as a result the claimants sustained injuries. The claimant in MVC No. 20 of 1985 claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,55,000, whereas the other two claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000 each.
6. On the service of notice of the claim petition on the appellant, an objection statement was filed on behalf of the appellant-corporation. In the statement, at paragraph 7 the appellant stated thus :
"This respondent submits that, on July 27, 1984, vehicle No. MEF 82
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
