The main legal point established is the statutory liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the distinction between no-fault liability and strict liability.

Hon 'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 11.4.2000 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 20/99, whereby, the Claim Petition filed by the appellants/claimants u/s 166 of the Act has been dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. The appellants are the wife and children of deceased- Tajinder Singh, who died in the motor accident on 14.8.1995. The deceased was the driver in Truck No. MP-25-2569. The truck was owned by respondent No.1. On 14.8.95, the deceased was driving this truck and was carrying iron trom Beladilla to Bhilai. On the way, in Bastamar valley, due to overloading, the vehicle could not over run the ups of the valley and it started coming down. The deceased applied the brake but there was mechanical failure of brake and steering, due to which, the vehicle could not be controlled by deceased- Tajinder Singh and it tilted towards right and he came under the vehicle and died on the spot. The appellants pleaded that all this happened on account of mechanical failure in the vehicle for which the owner of the vehicle was responsible as he was not keeping the vehicle in good running condition, therefore, they be awarded compensation of Rs. 11,15,000/- on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident.

3. The respondent No.1 (owner) filed his written statement denying the contentions of the appellants. He pleaded that the vehicle was in a good running condition and the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver himself. Since the driver could not keep the motion of the vehicle properly, when it was running over the ups of the valley, the vehicle started coming backwards, which he further could not control and the accident took place.

4. The respondent No.2 also opposed the claim petition. While supporting the stand taken by the respondent No.1, it pleaded that since the deceased himself was the driver, the claimants should have filed a petition under the Workmen Compensation Act.

5. The appellants examined Smt. Kam1ajeet Kaur (AW -1) and Meher Singh (A W -2) in support of their claim petition. The respondent No.1 examined himself as NA W -1, whereas, the Insurance Company did not examine any witness in rebuttal.

6. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself; therefore, the appellants were not entitled to receive any amount of compensation from the respondents. While rejecting their claim petition, the Tribunal also directed that the amount of interim compensation paid to the appellants under Section 140 of the Act be refunded to the concerned respondent.

7. Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself. She vehemently argued that, in fact, the owner of the vehicle was not keeping the vehicle in good condition, due to which, the accident occurred and the respondents were liable to pay compensation in this matter.

8. On the other hand, Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case.

10. A W -2 Meher Singh deposed that he was working as a Mechanic in Baba Motor Mechanic Works, Jagdalpur and the vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 25/2569 was being brought to him for repairs. There was some defect in the engine of the vehicle and the steering was also loose. He deposed that the accident occurred as the vehicle could not over run the high ups of the valley and when it started coming backwards, the brakes also failed and the accident took place. In the cross-exan1ination, he admitted that he was not present at the time