United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dr. P. Pandian and Others

S. Vimala, J.@mdashThe appeals have been filed by the insurance company challenging the finding rendered in M.C.O.P. No. 773 of 2002 and 602 of 2003. As both the claim petitions are in respect of the same accident, a common judgment has been pronounced. The injured claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 773 of 2002 has claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation and the injured claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 602 of 2003 has claimed a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs as compensation. The case of the claimants was that when they were travelling in a Tata Mobile van bearing Reg. No. TN-28-D-5859 and when it was nearing a transformer bearing No. 100 KWA, the transformer got burst and in the same incident, the van also got damaged, apart from causing injuries to the claimants. The claimants filed the claim petitions impleading the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, as respondents 1 and 2 on one part and the Electricity Board as respondents 3 to 7 on the other part.

2. The Tribunal, on consideration of materials placed before it, directed 50% compensation to be payable by respondents 1 and 2 therein, i.e., the owner and the insurer, and the remaining 50% to be payable by respondents 3 to 7, the Electricity Board. This order is under challenge in these appeals by the insurance company.

3. Even at the outset, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that respondents 3 to 7 herein, i.e., the Electricity Board, have already deposited the 50% of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and the claimants have also withdrawn the amount.

4. The learned counsel for the insurance company did not seriously dispute the fact that the Tata Mobile van bearing Reg. No. TN-28-D-5959 is also involved in the accident. In order to make a tortfeasor liable, whether it is the mere use of vehicle or negligent use of vehicle to be proved, is the issue that has been considered by the Tribunal.

5. In Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. The Manager, Purchase, Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that unless new principles are evolved, it is appropriate to invoke the principle enunciated in Ryland vs. Fletcher. The relevant observations in the above decision reads as follows:

We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order.

...

Like any other common law principle, which is acceptable to our jurisprudence, the Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher can be followed at least until any other new principle which excels the former can be evolved, or until legislation provides differently. Hence, we are disposed to adopt the Rule in claims for compensation made in respect of motor accidents.

..

In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, the question considered was regarding the application of the Rule in cases arising out of motor accidents. The observation made by E.S. Venkataramiah, J. (as he then was) can profitably be extracted here: Today, thanks to the modern civilization, thousands of motor vehicles are put on the road and the largest number of injuries and deaths are taking place on the roads on account of the motor vehicles accidents. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, the motor vehicles upon the roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands v. Fletcher. From the point of view of the pedestrian the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of the motor vehicles highly dangerous. Hit and run cases where the drivers of the motor vehicles who have caused the accidents are not known are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives as the case may be should be entitled to recover damages if the principle of social justice should have any meaning at all.

6. Based on this principle, the 50% of the liability fixed on the part of the insurance company can be justified. Moreover, at this distance point of time, especially when the electricity board has already deposited the amount of compensation and it has also been withdrawn by the claimants, it will not be fair to set aside the finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. The judgment of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit 50% of the award amount, (out of the total amount of compensation) along with interest and cost, as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount, as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are closed.