1997 (9) TMI 634 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Negligence of the bus driver.
2. Liability of the insurance company.
3. Liability of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) under the terms of the hiring contract.
4. Timeliness of the claim petition.
5. Definition of negligence.
6. Relief granted.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Negligence of the Bus Driver:
The Tribunal examined the evidence and concluded that the bus driver drove Bus No. RSB 3945 carelessly and negligently on 17.7.1981, causing the accident that resulted in the death of 23 passengers. This finding was based on the fact that the driver ignored the passengers' warnings about the overflowing water on the bridge and proceeded to drive the bus, leading to it being swept away by the flood. Consequently, Issue No.1 was decided in favor of the claim petitioners.

2. Liability of the Insurance Company:
The insurance company argued that its liability was limited to Rs. 75,000/- for all claims arising from one accident. The Tribunal upheld this limitation based on the terms of the insurance policy and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Issue No.2 was decided in favor of the petitioners, but the insurance company's liability was capped at Rs. 75,000/-.

3. Liability of RSRTC:
RSRTC contended that it was not liable for the accident as the driver was not its employee but that of the bus owner, Shri Sanjay Kumar. RSRTC relied on condition No.15 of the hiring agreement to disown its liability. However, the Tribunal found that the bus was under the control of RSRTC, the conductor was an RSRTC employee, and the fares were collected on behalf of RSRTC. The Tribunal concluded that condition No.15 was against public policy and could not discharge RSRTC from its liability. This decision was upheld by the High Court, which relied on previous judgments and found that RSRTC was vicariously liable for the driver's negligence. The Supreme Court also upheld this finding, stating that the definition of "owner" under Section 2(9) of the Act should be construed broadly to include the person in actual possession and control of the vehicle. Thus, Issue No.3 was decided in favor of the claim petitioners.

4. Timeliness of the Claim Petition:
The Tribunal found that the claim petitions were filed within the prescribed time limit, after condoning the delay which was properly explained. Therefore, Issue No.4 was decided in favor of the claim petitioners.

5. Definition of Negligence:
The Tribunal and the High Court both concluded that the incident fell within the definition of negligence, as the driver acted recklessly by driving the bus into the flooded river despite warnings from the passengers. Thus, Issue No.5 was decided in favor of the claim petitioners.

6. Relief Granted:
The Tribunal awarded different amounts of compensation to each of the claim petitioners through a composite award under Issue No.6. This award was upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court, which found no merit in the appeals filed by RSRTC. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming that RSRTC was liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased passengers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court, confirming that RSRTC was vicariously liable for the negligence of the bus driver, who was under its control and command at the time of the accident. The insurance company's liability was limited to Rs. 75,000/-, and the claim petitions were filed within the permissible time frame. The appeals filed by RSRTC were dismissed, with no order as to costs.