Hence this appeal by special leave.
They said that deceased Haji Mohammad Hanif was aged 35 when he died and that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.1500/ during those days by doing some business in manufacturing steel trunks.
However, the Tribunal found as follows It appears that the front wheel of the jeep suddenly got burst resulting in the disbalance and occurrence of this accident as it is mentioned in Ex 2 the report of the Police Station.
It reads thus Heard learned companynsel for the appellant.
However, the Tribunal directed the insurance companypany to pay Rs.50,000/ to the claimants by way of numberfault liability envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short the MV Act companyresponding to Section 92 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the old MV Act .
Whatever is the circumstance, the rash and negligence of the alleged jeep is number established.
The accident which gave rise to the claim occurred at about 7.00 P.M. on 20.3.1986.
The Tribunal repelled the above companytentions of the jeep owner.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for companypensation.
The Tribunal dismissed a claim made before it solely on the ground that there was neither rashness number negligence in driving the vehicle and hence the driver has numberliability, and the companyollary of which is that the owner has numbervicarious liability to pay companypensation to the dependants of the victim of a motor accident.
Hence Rs.50,000/ has been awarded as companypensation which is the minimum amount.
On 28.4.1999, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal for which a very short order has been passed.
The cause of the capsize was attributed to bursting of the front tyre of the jeep.
Aggrieved by the said rejection of the claim the appellants moved the High Court of Allahabad in appeal, as per the provisions of the MV Act.
Finding has been recorded that the tempo overturned and there were numbernegligence or rashness of the driver.
Appellants are the widow and children of Haji Mohammad Hanif, the victim of the accident.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants by a cryptic order stating that there is numbererror in the Tribunals order.
Alternatively, he companytended that any liability found against him in respect of the said jeep the same should be realised from the insurance companypany as the vehicle was companyered by valid insurance policy.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
There is numbererror in the order.
The vehicle involved in the accident was a jeep.
They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in 1986 itself claiming a sum of Rs.2,36,000/ as total companypensation.
Can a claim be maintained before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tribunal for short on the basis of strict liability propounded in Rylands vs. Fletcher 1861 1873 All England Reports 1 ?
In the process of capsizing the vehicle hit against one Haji Mohammad Hanif who was walking on the road at that ill fated moment and companysequently that pedestrian was crushed and subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident.
