The liability of the bailee for the negligence of its employee and the meaning of 'use of motor vehicles' under S.110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

This is a phenomenal case. Appeal is against a judgment in O.P.(M.V.) No.305 of 1986 under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is phenomenal, since the victim in the case is the owner of the vehicle itself. Not only this fact makes the case phenomenal but also the legal representatives of the deceased got an award of compensation on the basis that the owner of the vehicle, under strange circumstances, met with a motor accident with his own vehicle, which has taken his life. Now, we shall briefly state the facts of the case.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal are the applicants in the application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The unfortunate event happened on 10-12-1985 at about 11 a.m. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants, the widow and minor children of the deceased. 4th respondent is the person who drove the vehicle, which caused the accident. 5th respondent is the Insurance Company. Appellant herein is a Company engaged in the repairing and servicing of motor vehicles. The vehicle in question is a stage carriage KRO7200. The bus belonged to the deceased. It was taken by him on hire purchase from M.G.F. (India) Ltd. The vehicle was brought to the garage of the appellant for servicing.

3. The process of servicing was carried on by the workers engaged by the appellant. The husband of the first respondent herein was in the garage. He was talking with some persons. 4th respondent herein was on the driver's seat of KRO 7200. He started the engine and suddenly the bus moved backwards and it hit the compound wall on the western side of the garage. The husband of the first respondent who was

leaning to the side of another bus was struck by the left side of the bus KRO 7200 and in fact, he was sandwiched between the bus and the western wall. 4th respondent-Rajagopalan Nair - escaped running away from the scene.

4. The employees of the garage and others, after pushing back the bus, extricated the injured person (husband of the first respondent) and he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The injury sustained by him was serious. Since it was an internal injury of the lungs, he was subjected to an operation, but he succumbed to the injury on 11-12-1985. The husband of the first respondent was aged only 38 years. According to respondents 1 to 3, the deceased was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month by operating the bus service from Kottayam to Payyappadi. The widow and children claimed a total compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs under different heads.

5. Several contentions were taken by the appellant including the contention that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the case. The quantum was also disputed. Their liability to pay the amount was also seriously contested. Further, it was contended that in case the appellant is found liable to pay any compensation, the Tribunal should direct the Insurance Company to pay the amount.

6. The Tribunal very elaborately considered A1 I the points raised before it. It held that the Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to try the case. It found that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. It fixed the total compensation at Rs. 1,67,760/- with future interest at 12% per annum. It also held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Naturally, the appellant is aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal. It appeals.

7. Respondents 1 to 3 have challenged the quantum of compensation and filed a cross objection.

8. This court is called upon to consider the following points.

i. Whether on the facts and circumstances disclosed from the evidences, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to try the case.

ii. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation.

iii. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is justifiable or adequate.

iv. Whether the Tribunal erred in declining to direct the Insurance Compa