Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the procedure and forum to work out the rights accruing to claimants under the common law of Torts, and for a claimant to be entitled to compensation, it must be established that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved.

JUDGMENT :

U.L. Bhat, J.

Respondent herein is the widow of K.M. Varghese, the owner of scooter KLU 5023, who while driving the scooter on 9.6.1978 died in a road accident. She filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum, u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,02,500/- impleading the insurer. She could not have impleaded anybody else since the owner and the driver of the scooter was her husband. The insurer resisted the claim mainly on the ground that injury to the owner while driving his scooter is not covered by the policy. The Tribunal rejected the insurer's contention and passed an award for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The award is now challenged.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously challenges the view taken by the Tribunal that the insurance policy involves personal policy also. We do not think we need to go into this question since considering other aspects of the case, the insurer has to be exonerated.

3. Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not lay down substantive law in the matter of damages or compensation. It provides only a procedure and a forum for adjudication in regard to disputes relating to compensation. In order that a claimant be entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act, it must be established that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the case. In other words, Section 110-A provides the procedure and forum to work out the rights accruing to claimants under the common law of Torts.

4. The claimant's husband was the owner of the scooter and at the time of accident he was driving the scooter. The claim application merely describes it as an accident without averring that the accident took place on account of rashness or negligence in driving. The insurer has no case that the owner-driver was guilty of rash or negligent act. The scooter appears to have skidded. The accident took place on account of skidding of the scooter. It was an accident which took place during rainy season. The probabilities are that it was an inevitable accident resulting from water on the road. At any rate no party has a case that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the owner-driver. If that be so, such a claim cannot be agitated u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Appellant is the insurer. The insurer is made liable for the compensation adjudicated by the Tribunal. The insurer's liability is based on the contract of indemnity entered into between the insurer and the owner of the scooter. The contract of indemnity, of course, is subject to the provisions of the Act. The principle behind the contract of indemnity is that where the owner of a motor vehicle is compelled to pay compensation to persons who suffered injury or damage on account of an accident involving the vehicle, the insurer will indemnify the owner. We cannot take it that when the owner who happens to be the driver is guilty of rash and negligent driving, the contract of indemnity will hold good. Either way the claim against the insurer cannot succeed.

6. If the claimant's husband was guilty of rash and negligent driving and such driving caused the accident, his widow who is his representative cannot put forward a claim against the insurer. There is nothing for the insurer to indemnify if the claimant's husband was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and if the accident was an inevitable or an unavoidable one, there cannot be a claim under the law of Torts in India and a claim cannot be put forward u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. The Tribunal has indicated that certain rubber stamp inscriptions on the policy may indicate that the insurance cover extended to the liability arising out of the death of or bodily injuries to the owner of the vehicle. We do not think, it is necessary to go into the correctness of this opinion so expressed, that is because, if it amounts to a p