Proof of negligence is not necessary for maintaining a claim for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This miscellaneous appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 26th July, 1983 passed by Mr. Om Prakash, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 106 of 1982, whereby and whereunder the application for claim filed by the appellant in terms of Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was dismissed as not maintainable.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant, who was aged about 26 years, was working as a cleaner on a monthly salary of Rs. 300.00 under Messrs Naimuddin Nasimuddin, the respondent No. 1 in this appeal. On 16.7.1981 while he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. ORN 475 in course of his duty, he met with an accident when the said bus was coming from Rourkela to Ranchi near village Korian Dembo Toli. According to the appellant, while the bus was taking a turn after crossing a culvert at about 7.30 a.m., a truck bearing registration No. BRV 6285 came from the opposite side and collided with the bus on its right side towards the rear portion. According to the appellant the bus fell down and he suffered multiple injuries including fracture of pelvis and partial loss of eyesight. The appellant was hospitalised on 17.9.1981 and was discharged on 28.10.1981.

3. The appellant stated in his application for claim that by reason of the aforementioned accident, he has become permanently disabled and thus he having lost his earning capacity, filed the said application claiming compensation under Sec. 110-A of the said Act to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 , inter alia, on the ground that he was the only earning member of his family consisting of his parents, wife and children.

4. Before the Tribunal below, the employer filed a written statement denying its liability to pay any compensation and in the alternative, it was stated that the bus in question being insured with M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., the liability, if any, was that of the said insurer.

5. In the written statement, filed on behalf of M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., it was stated that there was no act of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver in driving the bus in question and as such, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below formulated 3 issues for determination which read as follows:

(i) Whether the application under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable?

(ii) Is the claimant entitled to receive any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to any relief? If so, to what relief?

7. The learned Tribunal below held that in the instant case, the claimant did not allege any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing registration No. ORN 475 and in fact, in his evidence exonerated the said driver and put the entire blame upon the driver of the truck in question.

8. On the basis of the aforementioned admission on the part of the appellant, the learned Tribunal below held that no negligence having been proved on the part of the driver of the bus in question, the said application was not maintainable.

9. The learned Tribunal below, in this connection, has relied upon a decision of a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mangilal V/s. Parasram 1970 ACJ 86 (MP), wherein it was held that before compensation can be awarded to the claimant against the insurer, there must be a finding of negligence on the part of insured so as to make him as also the insurer liable in tort.

10. He further relied on in the case of Mangilal V/s. Parasram 1970 ACJ 86 (MP) and in the case of Jaswant Rai V/s. National Transport and General Co. Ltd. 1972 ACJ 21 (P&H) as also in Narottam Dass V/s. G.M., Orissa Road Trans. Co. Ltd. 1969 ACJ 327 (Orissa).

11. The learned Tribunal below also negatived the plea raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect that as in