A victim in a motor accident is entitled to compensation unless any exceptions apply, and the court can adopt the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for fixing the quantum of compensation.

1. Leave granted.

2. Can a claim be maintained before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) on the basis of strict liability propounded by Rylands v. Fletcher, 1861-1873 All England Reports 17? The Tribunal dismissed a claim made before it solely on the ground that there was neither rashness nor negligence in driving the vehicle and hence the driver has no liability, and the corollary of which is that the owner has no vicarious liability to pay compensation to the defendants of the victim of a motor accident. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants by a cryptic order stating that there is no error in the Tribunal's order. Hence this appeal by special leave.

3. The accident which gave rise to the claim occurred at about 7.00 p.m. on 20.3.1986. The vehicle involved in the accident was a jeep. It capsized while it was in motion. The cause of the capsize was attributed to bursting of the front tyre of the jeep. In the process of capsizing the vehicle hit against one Haji Mohammed Hanif who was walking on the road at that ill-fated moment and consequently succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident.

4. Appellants are the widow and children of Haji Mohammed Hanif, the victim of the accident. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in 1986 itself claiming a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- as total compensation. They said that deceased Haji Mohammed Hanif was aged 35 when he died and that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 1,500/- during those days by doing some business in manufacturing steel trucks.

5. The owner of the jeep disclaimed the liability by denying even the fact of the accident in which his jeep was involved. Alternatively, he contended that any liability found against him in respect of the said jeep the same should be realised from the insurance company as the vehicle was covered by valid insurance policy. The Tribunal repelled the above contentions of the jeep owner. However, the Tribunal found as follows:

"It appears that the front wheel of the jeep suddenly got burst resulting in the disbalance and occurrence of his accident as it is mentioned in Ext. 2 the report of the Police Station. Whatever is the circumstance, the rash and negligence of the alleged jeep is not established".

6. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for compensation. However, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants by way of no fault liability envisaged in S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short'the Motor Vehicles Act') (corresponding to S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - the old Motor Vehicles Act).

7. Aggrieved by the said rejection of the claim the appellants moved the High Court Allahabad in appeal as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 28.4.1999, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal for which a very short order has been passed. It reads thus:

"Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Finding has been recorded that the tempo overturned and there were no negligence or rashness of the driver. Hence Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded as compensation which is the minimum amount. There is no error in the order. Dismissed".

8. We have to proceed on two premises based on the finding of the Tribunal. The first is that there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the jeep. Second is that the deceased was knocked down by the jeep when its front tyre burst and consequently the vehicle became disbalanced and turned turtle. Should there necessarily be negligence of the person who drove the vehicle if a claim for compensation (due to the accident involving that vehicle) is to be sustained?

9. For considering the above question we may refer to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act subsumed the provisions relating to "Claims Tribunal". Whatever could be considered and determined by the civil courts in suits claiming