2001 (1) TMI 1016 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a claim can be maintained before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal based on strict liability as propounded in Rylands vs. Fletcher.
2. The applicability of the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher to motor accident cases.
3. Determination of compensation and interest rate for the claimants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a claim can be maintained before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal based on strict liability as propounded in Rylands vs. Fletcher:

The Tribunal initially dismissed the claim on the grounds that there was no rashness or negligence in driving the vehicle, implying no liability for the driver or the owner. The High Court upheld this decision. However, the Supreme Court questioned whether negligence is a necessary condition for sustaining a claim for compensation due to an accident involving a motor vehicle. The Court noted that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not restricted to claims arising out of negligence and that other premises for such causes of action exist.

2. The applicability of the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher to motor accident cases:

The Supreme Court considered whether the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher could apply to motor accident cases. This rule states that a person who brings something onto their land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes must keep it at their peril and is prima facie answerable for all natural consequences of its escape. The Court noted that this rule has been applied to various situations, including motor accidents, and has been referenced in several decisions by this Court. The Court observed that motor vehicles on roads could be considered within the principle of liability defined in Rylands vs. Fletcher, especially given the increasing volume of traffic and the associated risks to pedestrians. The Court decided to adopt this rule for claims for compensation in motor accidents, emphasizing the principle of social justice and the need for liability without fault in such cases.

3. Determination of compensation and interest rate for the claimants:

The Supreme Court decided to fix the quantum of compensation itself, considering the accident occurred more than 13 years ago. The appellants claimed Rs.2,36,000, but the Court found it reasonable to believe the deceased's monthly income was Rs.1,500. Using the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the MV Act, the Court calculated the compensation to be Rs.1,80,000 after necessary deductions. Regarding interest, the Court noted that the reasonable rate of simple interest had been lowered to 9% per annum due to changes in the economy and RBI policies. The compensation amount would bear interest at this rate from the date of the claim, with Rs.50,000 paid under Section 140 to be deducted from the principal amount. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount by depositing it in the Tribunal, to be disbursed to the claimants following principles laid down in previous judgments.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, establishing that claims for compensation due to motor accidents could be maintained based on strict liability, without the necessity of proving negligence. The Court fixed the compensation at Rs.1,80,000 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim, directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount in the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.