UNION OF INDIAversusBHAGWATI PRASAD (D) AND ORS.

A                           UNION OF INDIA
                                  v.
                      BHAGWATI PRASAD (D) AND ORS.

                                  MARCH 7, 200 I

B         [G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]


          Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

          Section 110-A-Compensation-Application for-Claim against Railway
C   Administration-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Jurisdiction to entertain-
    A taxi collided with a Passenger Train resulting in the death ofsome passengers
    and bodily injuries to some-Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to entertain
    the claim against the Railway Administration-High Court upheld the
    Tribunal's order-Correctness of-Held: Tribunal.has jurisdiction to entertain
D   the claim not only against the owner or insurer of the vehicle but also against
    any other vehicle which comes in collision including a Passenger Train-
    Tribunal also has jurisdiction to entertain the claim against another joint
    tortfeasor connected with the accident even though the accident is due to the
    sole and exclusive negligence of such other joint tortfeasor and not the
    negligence of the motor vehicle in question-Hence, Tribunal has jurisdiction
E   to entertain claim against the Railway Administration.

          A taxi came in collision with a Passenger Train as a result of which some
    passengers died and some sustained bodiiy injuries. Applications were filed
    before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation under
    Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the insurer of the taxi
F   as well as against the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration
    contended that the T~ibunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against
    the Railway Administration. The Tribunal held that it had the jurisdiction to
    entertain application for claim not only against the owner or insurer of the
    vehicle but also against any other vehicle, which came in collision, and in the
G   case in hand, against the Railway Administration. The High Court upheld
    the Tribunal's order. Hence this appeal.

          The following question arose before the Court:-

          Whether an application filed before a Motor Accfdents Claims Tribunal '
H                                        290
                                        U.0.L v. BHAGWATI PRASAD                            291
                for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury A
    -.,.        to persons arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle and the claim is made
                both against the insurer, owner and driver of the motor vehicle as well as the
                other joint tortfeasors, if a finding on hearing is reached that it is solely the
                negligence of the joint tortfeasor and not the driver of the Motor Vehicle then
                would the Tribunal lose the jurisdiction to award compensation against the          B
                joint tortfeasor?

                      Dismissing the appeal, the Court

                      HELD: 1.1. A claim for compensation on account of the accident arising
                out of the use of a Motor Vehicle could be filed before a Motor Accidents
         :>-·   Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 not only             C
                against ihe owner or insurer of the Motor Vehicle but also against another
                joint tortfeasor connected with the accident or against whom composite
                negligence is alleged. [296-A]

                     Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, [1997] 8 SCC 683, D
                approved.

                      1.2. A combined reading of Sections 110 and 110-A of the Act which
•
         -·'    deal with the constitution of one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals
                and application for compensation arising out of an accident, as specified in
'               Section 110(1) unequivocally indicates that the Claims Tribunal would have E
                the jurisdiction to entertain application for compensation both by the persons
                injured or legal representatives of the deceased when the accident arose out
                of the use of the Motor Vehicle. The crucial expression conferring jurisdiction
                upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is the
                accident arising o~t of the use of Motor Vehicle and, therefore, if there has
                been a collision between the Motor Vehicle and the Railway train, then all F
                those persons injured or legal representatives of the deceased could make
                application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal not only against the
                owner, driver or insurer of the Motor Vehicle but also against the Railway
                Administration. Once such an application is held to be maintainable and tile
                Tribunal entertains such an application, if in course of enquiry, the Tribunal G
         ...    comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasor connected witl1 the
                accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the Motor
                Vehicle then the Tribunal cannot be held to be denuded of its jurisdiction
                which it had initially. In other words, in such a case also the Motor Accidents
                Claims Tribunal would be entitled to award compensation against the other
                joint tortfeasor and, in the case in hand, it would be fully justified to award H
    •.
    292                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A   compensation against the Railway Administration if ultimately it is held that
    it was the sole negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. To
    denude the Tribunal of its jurisdiction on a finding that the driver of the Motor
    Vehicle was not negligent, would cause undue hardship to every claimant and
    there is no justification to interpret the provisions of the Act in that manner.
                                                                            [296-B-F]
B
           2. Once the jurisdiction is invoked and is exercised, the said jurisdiction
    cannot be divested of on any subsequent finding about the negligence of the
    tortfeasor concerned. It would be immaterial if the finding is arrived at that
    it is only the other joint tortfeasor who as negligent in causing the accident
C   and not the driver of the Motor Vehicle. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to
    entertain the application for claim of compensation in respect of an accident
    arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle depends essentially on the fact
    whether there had been any use of the Motor Vehicle and once that is
    established the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding
    being arrived at, at a later point of time, that it is the negligence of the other
D   joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the Driver of the Motor Vehicle in
    question. [296-G-H]

         Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, [1997] 8 SCC 683,
    disapproved.

E        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 431-446
    of 1988.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.82 of the Allahabad High
    Court in C.R. Nos. 309, 310, 311/80, 314-321 and 333-337 of 1980.

           Indra Sawhney, W.S.A. Qadri, Anil Katiyar, M.C. Dhingra, Pravir
F    Choudhary, G.G. Upadhyay, Syed Ali Ahmed, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, A.K.
     Srivastava, Vikas Bansal, R.D. Upadhyay and K.K. Gupta, for the appearing
    _parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :

G         PATTANAIK, J. The Union of India through General Manager,
    Northern Railways is in appeal against the Revisional order of the High
    Court of Allahabad. By the impugned order, the High Court has upheld the
    order of the Claims Tribunal on preliminary issue as to whether the Motor
    Vehicle Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claim for compensation.
    against Railway Administration, in the event it is held that for the accident
H   in question there was no negligence on the part of the Railway Administration.
                         U.0.1. v. BHAGWATI PRASAD [PATTANAIK, J.]                293

           A taxi came in collision with Allahabad-Saharanpur Passenger Train as a A
           result of which passengers died and some sustained bodily injuries. For
           sustaining such bodily injuries arising out of the accident, applications were
           filed claiming compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
           1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), against the insurer of the taxi as
           well as against the Railway Administration. It was alleged that the accident B
           occurred due to the negligence of the employees of the Railway staff at the
           railway crossing, the railway crossing having been kept open for the high·
           way traffic at a time the train was to pass through the point. The Railway
           Administration filed written statement taking the plea that application for
           compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can be filed against the insurer,
     ,._   owner or driver of the Motor Vehicle and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to C
           entertain the claim against the Railway Administration. In view of the aforesaid
           stand, a preliminary issue was framed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal held
           that if claimants have sustained injuries in an accident arising out of the use
           of a Motor Vehicle then the Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to entertain
           application for claim not only against the owner or insurer of the vehicle but
           also against any other vehicle which came in collision, and in the case in D
            hand, against the Railway Administration. Against the aforesaid order of the
-'         Tribunal Revision having been filed a learned Single Judge of Allahabad
           High Court referred the matter to the Division Bench and by the impugned
           judgment the Division Bench having upheld the order of the Tribunal, the
           present appeals have been preferred by the grant of Special Leave. When E
           these appeals were taken up for hearing on 14th February, 2002 before a
           Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, the decision of this Court in the
            case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Company, (1997) 8 Supreme
            Cpurt Cases 683, was placed before the Court. The conclusion of the Court
            recorded in paragraph 41 of the aforesaid judgment did not find favour with
            the two learned Judges who were hearing the matter and accordingly it was F
            directed that the matter be referred to a larger Bench and that is how it has
            come before us.

                Mrs. Indira Sawhney, learned counsd appearing for the appellant
           Railway Administration contends that in respect of an application for G
     ·~•   compensation filed under Section 110-A of the Act, the Tribunal constituted
           under sub-section (I) of Section 110 can pass an award under Section 110-
           A against the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved or by all or
           any of them, as the case may be. A passenger train not being a Motor
           Vehicle, no application for claim of compensation against Railway
           Administration could be entertained by the Claims Tribunal constituted under H
    294                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A   sub-section (I) of Section 110 if the death or injury has occurred on account
    of a collision between a Motor Vehicle and a Passenger Train. The impugned
    judgment of the High Court, therefore, according to the learned counsel is
    unsustainable in law. In support of this contention reliance has been placed
    on the decision of the Court in the case of Union of India v. United India
    Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., (supra). It is contended on behalf of the
B   respondent, however, that on account of a collision between a Motor Vehicle
    and a Train if death or injury is resulted to several passengers then the
    accident must be held to have arisen out of tht> use of Motor Vehicle. In such
    a case, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be said to be ousted
    merely because the collision took place between a Motor Vehicle and a
C   Passengei;Train. It is further contended that the Railway Administratjon cannot
    be absolved of its liability on the plea that the employees of the train were
    not negligent.

           On account of the rapid development of road transport and increase in
    number of Motor Vehicles on the road the incidence of road accidents by
D   Motor Vehicles having increased enormously the Motor Vehicles Act enacted
    by the Parliament was amended and the provisions were inserted for payment
    of compensation in certain cases of accidents without proof or fault or
    negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The claim for compensation
    in respect of the accide-nts involving death or bodily injury to persons arising
E   out of the use of Motor Vehicles as well as the insurance of the Motor
    Vehicles against the third party risk and the liability of the insurer are contained
    in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Government has been
    empowered under Section 110( I) of the Act to constitute one or more Motor
    Vehicles Accidents Claim Tribunals by notification in the Official Gazette.
    Section 110-A provides for filing an application for compensation and Section
F    110-B is the power of the Claims Tribunal to pass an award on receiving an
    application for compensation made under sub-section (A) of Section 110.
    The procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal are enumerated in Section
     110-C of the Act. It is not necessary for adjudicating the point in issue to
    examine and notice any other provision of the Act. In the case of Union of
G   India v. United India Insurance Company (supra) applications for
    compensation had been filed either by the injured passengers or the dependant
    of the deceased passengers travelling in the ill-fated Motor Vehicle both
    against the insurer of the Motor Vehicle as well as against the Railway
    Administration and one of the contention which had been raised before this
    Court by the Railway Administration was whether a claim for compensation
H   would at all be maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or
               U.0.1. v.BHAGWATIPRASAD [PATTANAIK,J.]                      295

agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint A
tortfeasors, and if the same arose out of the use of the Motor Vehicle. On
consideration of different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act this Court
ultimately came to hold that , "We hold that the claim for compensation is
maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or agencies which are
held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors, and if B
arising out of use of the tnotor vehicle. We hold that the Tribunal and the
High Court were right in holding that an award could be passed against the
Railways if its negligence in relation to the same accident was also proved."
The Court also came to hold that the views expressed by Gauhati, Orissa, and
Madras High Courts to the effect that no award can be passed against others
except the owner/driver or insurer of the motor vehicle are not correct, and C
on the other hand the view taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana,
Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts to the effect that the claim lies
 before the Tribunal even against another joint tortfeasor connected with the
same accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged. We are in
respectful agreement with the aforesaid conclusion of the Court in the aforesaid
case. Having said so it was further held that if it is ultimately found that there D
 is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or there is no. defect
 in the vehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence of "other
 parties/agencies then on that finding the claim would go out of Section 110
 of the Act because the case would become exclusive negligence of Railways
 and again if the accident had arisen only on account of the negligence of E
 persons other than the driver/ owner of the motor vehicle the claim would not
 be maintainable before the Tribunal. It is this observation of the Court in the
 aforesaid case which is strongly relied upon by Mrs. Indira Sawhney , the
  learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration and it is this
 observation with which the two learned Judges hearing the appeal did not
 prima facie agree with for which the reference has been made to this larger F
 Bench. The question that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether an
  application filed before a Claims Tribunal for compensation in respect of
 accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the
  use of Motor Vehicle and the claim is made both against the insurer, owner
 and driver of the motor vehicle as well as the other joint tortfeasors, if a G
  finding on hearing is reached that it is solely the negligence of the joint
  tortfeasor and not the driver of the Motor Vehicle then would the Tribunal
  loose the jurisdiction to award compensation against the joint tortfeasor. It is
  not disputed, and as has been already held by this court in the case of Union
  of India v. United India Insurance Co. ltd., (supra) that a claim for
 compensation on account of the accident arising out of the us.e of a Motor H
    296                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A    Vehicle could be filed before a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles
     Act not only against the owner or insurer of the Motor Vehicle but also
     against another joint tortfeasor connected with the accident or against whom
    composite negligence is alleged. A combined reading of Section 110, 110-A,
    which deal with the Constitution' of one or more Motor Accidents Claims
     Tribunal and application for compensation arising out of an accident, as
B    specified in sub-section (1) of Section 110 unequivocally indicates that Claims
     Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to entertain application for compensation
    both by the persons injured or legal representatives of the deceased when the
     accident arose out of the use of Motor Vehicle. The crucial expression
     conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor
C    Vehicles Act is the accident arising out of use of Motor Vehicle, and therefore,
     if there has been a collision between the Motor Vehicle and Railway train
    then all those persons injured o~ died could make application for compensation
    before the Claims Tribunal not only against the owner, driver or insurer of
    the Motor Vehicle but also against t~e Railway Administration. Once such an
    application is held to be maintainable and the Tribunal entertains such an
D   application, if in course of enquiry the Tribunal comes to a finding that it is
    the other joint tortfeasor connected with the accident who was responsible
    and not the owner or driver of the Motor Vehicle then the Tribunal cannot
    be held to be denuded of its jurisdiction which it had initially. In other words,
    in such a case also the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal would be entitled to
E   award compensation against the other joint tortfeasor, and in the case in
    hand; it would be fully justified to award compensation against the Railway
    Administration if ultimately it is held that it was the sole negligence on the
    part of the Railway Administration. To denude the Tribunal of its jurisdiction
    on a finding that the driver of the Motor Vehicle was not negligent, would
    cause undue hardship to every claimant and we see no justification to interpret
F   the provisions of the Act in that manner. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to
    entertain application for compensation flows from the provisions contained
     in Section 110-A read with sub-section (1). of Section 110. Once the jurisdiction
    is invoked and is exercised the said jurisdiction cannot be divested of on any
    subsequent finding about the negligence of the tortfeasor concerned. It would
G   be immaterial if the finding is arrived at that it is only other joint tortfeasor
    who was negligent in causing accident and not the driver of the Motor Vehicle.
    In our considered opinion, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain
    application for claim ·of compensation in respect of an accident arising out of
    the use of Motor Vehicle depends essentially on the fact whether there had
    been any use of Motor Vehicle and once that is established the Tribunal's
H   jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being a,rrived at a later
               U.O.l. v. BHAGWATI PRASAD [PATTANAIK, J.]                   297

point of time that it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the A
negligence of the. Motor Vehicle in question. We are therefore, of the
considered opinion that the conclusion of the Court in the case of Union of
India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (supra) to the effect -

      "It is ultimately found that there is no negligence on the part of the
driver of the vehicle or there is no defect in the vehicle but the accident is B
only due to the sole negligence of the other parties/agencies, then on that
finding, the claim would go out of Section 110(1) of the Act because the case
would then become one of the exclusive negligence of Railways. Again if the
accident had arisen only on account of the negligence of persons other than
the driver/owner of the motor vehicle, the claim would not be maintainable C
before the Tribunal" is not correct in law and to that extent the aforesaid
decision must be held to have not been correctly decided.

      In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court requiring interference
of this Court. These appeals fail and are dismissed.                              D
V.S.S.                                                      Appeal dismissed.