The court established that liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can apply even without proven negligence if an accident occurs outside a driver's control.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Distt. Kobra (in short 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 19 of 2009, whereby liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon appellant insurance company, jointly and severally, along with owner, respondent No. 6.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that Pramod Kumar was the employee of owner, respondent No. 6. On the fateful day, i.e., 12.9.2008 at about 1 a.m. in the night while Pramod Kumar after unloading coal was returning back from the phase by driving Hyva bearing registration No. CG 12 - C 0492, all of a sudden due to the failure of brakes on the slope, the vehicle became uncontrollable and turned turtle twice. As a result, Pramod Kumar sustained grievous injuries and while being taken to hospital succumbed to the same. At the relevant time, the vehicle in question was owned by respondent No. 6 and insured with the appellant.

3. At the time of accident, the deceased was 30 years old and as a driver he was earning Rs. 9,111 per month. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow, minor children and parents of the deceased, being his legal heirs - dependants filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act, 1988') before the Tribunal for a total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 for the death of Pramod Kumar under various heads.

4. However, the learned Tribunal after hearing counsel for the respective parties and upon close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs. 13,30,500 in favour of the claimants, fastening the liability, jointly and severally, upon the appellant insurance company along with owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 6.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the application filed by respondents - claimants under S.166 of the Act, 1988 itself was not maintainable in law and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold because liability to pay compensation under S.166 of the Act, 1988 is a tortious liability and is fault based, as distinguished under S.163 - A of the Act, 1988, which deals with no fault liability. He has further contended that for maintaining an application under S.166 of the Act, 1988, negligence on the part of owner or driver of the offending vehicle is the sine qua non or condition precedent. However, in the instant case, no other vehicle was involved and the deceased himself was negligent and, therefore, the respondents - claimants are not entitled for compensation under the said provision.

7. In the alternate, he has also contended that in the absence of evidence, the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 9,111 and consequently, the amount of compensation has been assessed exorbitantly. Further, it has been argued that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the liability of the appellant insurance company was not unlimited, but limited to the extent of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

8. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Minu B. Mehta v. Bal - krishna Ramchandra Nayan , 1977 ACJ