Rao Tularam Rashtriya Unnati Uchch Madh. Vidyalaya vs Dr. Moijuddin Sidiki and Others

Gopal Lal Gupta, J.—These 11 appeals have been directed against the interim award passed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner on 7.3.1991. The Tribunal directed the R.S.R.T.C. and Rao Tularam Rastriya Unnati Uchch Madh. Vidyalaya (the owners of the two vehicles involved in the accident) to make payment in the ratio of 30:70.

It is not necessary to mention the facts of the case in detail. Suffice it to say, the accident took place on 4.10.1989. The students of the appellant Vidyalaya were going for picnic in Matador No. RSF 5373 driven by Fazlu. The Matador collided with the bus No. RNP 3177 belonging to the R.S.R.T.C. Many students sustained injuries and some of them died. On filing the claim petitions, the Tribunal passed the interim award.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the Tribunal in passing the interim award was not justified in fixing the liability of the owner of Matador at 70 per cent and the amount could have been made payable jointly and severally. He further submits that since the payment has been made as per interim award, this Court may dispose of these appeals observing that the Tribunal shall not be guided while passing final award by the ratio of liability fixed in the interim award. Mr. Ashok Chhangani and Mr. Bhati, learned Counsel for the respondents R.S.R.T.C., concede that the apportionment of the liability was not required to be done in the matter of interim award.

Interim award on the principle of ''no fault liability'' is passed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has to be accepted that while passing the order u/s 140 the Tribunal is not required to consider the proportionate liability of the vehicles involved in the accident. Of course where the factum of accident is denied, the Tribunal may be inclined and rather do well to hold a summary inquiry in order to form an opinion as to whether the accident did take place and whether the vehicle in question was involved in the accident or not. Once it is found that vehicle or the vehicles were involved in the accident, the Tribunal is obliged to pass interim award under the principle of ''no fault liability''. The very concept of ''no fault liability'' is that the amount is payable not because there was fault on the part of driver of the vehicle, but because the vehicle was involved in the accident. That being so, in the case where two or more vehicles are involved in the accident, Tribunal is not required to consider at the stage of passing the order u/s 140 of the Act as to driver of which vehicle was more responsible and what could be the liability of the driver of each vehicle. In such cases, the liability of the owners of all the vehicles involved in the accident and of course of the insurance company, if the vehicles were insured, should be made joint and several.

Be that as it may, Tribunal passed the interim award fixing the percentage of liability. It has been informed that the payments have already been made. It is made clear that the Tribunal while passing the final award shall not be guided by the observations made in the order dated 7.3.1991 regarding the apportionment of liability. It is to be seen independent of these observations as to whether drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and if it was the case of contributory negligence, what should be percentage of liability of the owner/insurer of each vehicle. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of.