What a Motor Accident Claim Is

Why it matters here. It is the case to cite whenever the vehicle was stationary, or the harm followed at an interval, and it explains why claims for injuries caused while loading, unloading or repairing a vehicle have been entertained.

Fault, no fault, and strict liability

Two judgments a generation apart show how the basis of the claim moved.

Facts. Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 SC 1248, decided on 28 January 1977. It was argued that an owner, and through him the insurer, should be liable for an accident on a public place without proof of negligence.

Held. Proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurer can be held liable in the ordinary fault jurisdiction; liability without proof of negligence could not be imposed by the courts, and it was for Parliament to create it, which it later did to a limited extent by the no-fault provisions.

Facts. Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (2001) 2 SCC 9, decided on 3 January 2001. The Tribunal found neither rashness nor negligence and dismissed the claim, while directing payment of the fixed no-fault amount then provided.

Held. A claim may be maintained before a Claims Tribunal on the basis of the rule of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher, so that even without negligence a victim of an accident occurring while a motor vehicle was in use is entitled to compensation unless one of the recognised exceptions to that rule applies. The Court distinguished the statutory no-fault liability, a fixed amount payable even where an exception would apply, from strict liability at common law, and noted that the no-fault amount is deducted from the final award.

Why they matter here. Together they show the three bases a claimant may put forward: negligence, strict liability at common law, and the statutory no-fault provision, with the last two independent of proof of fault.

A worked example

A lorry parked on a slope without its handbrake rolls down and injures Firoz two hours later.

Is it an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle? Yes, on Shivaji Dayanu Patil: the phrase is wider than "caused by", and covers harm with a causal relation to the use of the vehicle even after it has come to rest.

Where does he claim? Before the Claims Tribunal for the area, and by section 175 no civil court may entertain the question.

On what basis? Negligence of the driver in parking; strict liability on Kaushnuma Begum; and the fixed no-fault amount under section 164 without proving anything about fault.

What if the lorry had been jacked up in a workshop and fell on a mechanic? Still capable of arising out of the use of the vehicle, on the reasoning of Shivaji Dayanu Patil, and the Tribunal would decide it.

What it does NOT mean

It is not a civil suit. Section 175 excludes the civil court where a Tribunal exists.

It does not always require negligence. Section 164 dispenses with it, and Kaushnuma Begum allows strict liability.

"Use" is not confined to driving. A stationary vehicle may still be in use.

The no-fault amount is not additional to the award. It is deducted from the final compensation.

Quick revision

1. Three routes: fault, statutory no fault under section 164, and the hit and run scheme.
2. Section 165: the Tribunal. Section 175: the bar on civil courts where a Tribunal exists, and no injunction against its proceedings.
3. Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530: "arising out of the use" is wider than "caused by" and covers harm hours after the vehicle came to rest.
4. Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 SC 1248: proof of negligence is necessary in the fault jurisdiction, and liability without fault is for Parliament to create.
5. Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (2001) 2 SCC 9: strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher may be relied on before a Tribunal, subject to the recognised exceptions.
6. The statutory no-fault amount is deducted from the final award.

Test yourself

1. What is a motor accident claim, and where is it made? It is a claim for compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, made to a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. By section 175, where such a Tribunal has been constituted for an area, no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to a claim which the Tribunal may adjudicate, and no civil court may grant an injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Tribunal. The claim may be put on three bases: the negligence of the driver, for which the owner is vicariously liable and which yields just compensation under section 168; the statutory no-fault provision in section 164, which requires no proof of wrongful act, neglect or default; and, on the authority of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (2001) 2 SCC 9, the rule of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher, subject to its recognised exceptions.

2. How widely is "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" construed? Very widely. In Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530, a petrol tanker collided with a truck and overturned; about four hours later the leaked petrol caught fire and exploded, killing and injuring many people who had gathered around it. The Supreme Court held that the expression is wider than an accident caused by the vehicle, that it covers an accident having a causal relation with the use of the vehicle even where it occurs some time after the vehicle has come to rest, and that the explosion was part of the same incident as the collision. The consequence is that a stationary vehicle may still be in use, and claims arising during loading, unloading and repair have been entertained on the same reasoning.

3. Is proof of negligence necessary in a motor accident claim? It depends on the basis of the claim. In the ordinary fault jurisdiction it is, and Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 SC 1248, held that proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurer can be made liable, and that liability without proof of negligence was for Parliament and not for the courts to create. Parliament has since created it: section 164, in force from 1 April 2022, gives five lakh rupees for death and two and a half lakh for grievous hurt and provides that the claimant need not plead or establish any wrongful act, neglect or default. Independently, Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (2001) 2 SCC 9, held that a claimant may invoke the strict liability rule in Rylands v. Fletcher before a Tribunal, so that even without negligence compensation is payable unless one of the recognised exceptions applies, the statutory no-fault amount being deducted from the final award.