The legal interpretation of 'accident' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the liability of the Insurance Company to cover any damage arising out of the use of a vehicle.

R.K. Verma, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the owner and the driver of the of fending bus No. MPU 5006 against the Award dated 29-1-1982 passed in Claim Case No. 7 of 1977 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, whereby the claimant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 3,622.20 ps. as compensation.

2. The claimant-respondent Chenram filed the instant claim petition for compensation amounting to Rs. 17,324.05 ps. before the Claims Tribunal, against his brother Kacharmal owner of the bus bearing registration No. MPU 5006 and its driver and the Insurance Co. which had insured Kacharmal against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the said bus in a public place, on the ground that the driver had reversed the bus rashly and negligently and dashed against the claimant's bus causing damage to that bus. The claimant alleged that as a result of the accident, his bus, which was being plied on the route in competition with Kacharmal's bus No. MPU-5006, remained out of use for nine days causing loss of income to the claimant for that period and that the claimant had to pay the repairing charges of his bus. The claim was resisted by the appellants owner and driver as well as the Insurance Company-respondent No. 2.

3. After trial, the learned Tribunal found that the driver of the offending bus No. MPU-5006 caused the damage to the claimant's bus due to rash and negligent reverse driving of the offending bus MPU-5006 which dashed against the claimant's bus.

4. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal found that the claimant had incurred expenses on repairs of his damaged bus amounting to Rs. 3,497/- and that the claimant had suffered loss of earnings of Rs. 675/- during the period of nine days when his" bus was out of use. The learned Tribunal also found that the claimant had received Rs. 550/- from the Insurance Company which amount was liable to be deducted while determining the amount of compensation payable. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal allowed a total compensation of Rs. 3,622.20 ps. in favour of the claimant Chenram.

5. Being aggrieved by the award, the owner and the driver of the offending bus No. MPU-5006 have filed this appeal.

6. The respondent-claimant has filed cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the instant claim petition was not maintainable and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had no jurisdiction to try the claim for compensation, since it was not a case of accident but a case of deliberate mischief.

8. It has been submitted on the basis of the statement of Chenram (PW-2) that the appellant No. 2 Ramesh, driver of the bus No. MPU-5006 belonging to Kacharmal appellant No. 1 was commanded by the owner Kacharmal's son Kantilal to hit and damge the bus of respondent Chenram. The driver Ramesh accordingly, drove the offending bus with speed and dashed it against the bus of Chenram causing damage to that bus.

9. The damage thus, caused to the respondent's bus arose out of an incident which was intended and not unexpected and as such, it cannot be called an accident.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the word 'Accident' used in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has not been defined in the Act.

11. The meaning of the word "accident" is given in Legal Glossary published by the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs as under :-

"A sudden event occurring without intent or volition whether through negligence, carelessness, unawareness, ignorance or a combination of causes and producing an unfortunate result; an unexepected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to the fault of the person."

12. The learned counsel for the appellant