TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can be maintained on the basis of strict liability even in the absence of rashness or negligence in the use of a motor vehicle; (ii) Whether compensation in such a case can be assessed on the structured formula basis with interest and after giving credit for the amount paid under no-fault liability.
Issue (i): Whether a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can be maintained on the basis of strict liability even in the absence of rashness or negligence in the use of a motor vehicle.
Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not confined to claims founded on negligence. The common law rule of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher was treated as capable of application to motor accident cases, subject to recognised exceptions. The judgment distinguished statutory no-fault liability from common law strict liability and held that the absence of negligence did not by itself defeat a claim where the accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle.
Conclusion: The claim was maintainable even though negligence or rashness was not established, and the Tribunal and High Court erred in denying compensation on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether compensation in such a case can be assessed on the structured formula basis with interest and after giving credit for the amount paid under no-fault liability.
Analysis: The structured formula in the Second Schedule was used as a safe guide for quantification. Monthly income, age, and deduction for personal expenses were considered to fix just compensation. Interest was awarded under the Tribunal's power to grant interest, and the amount already paid under Section 140 was directed to be deducted from the principal with consequential recalculation of interest on the balance.
Conclusion: Compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,80,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim, subject to deduction of Rs. 50,000 already paid under no-fault liability.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the claimants were held entitled to compensation on the basis of strict liability, with the amount enhanced and adjusted for the no-fault payment already made.
Ratio Decidendi: A motor accident claim may lie on the basis of strict liability arising from the use of a motor vehicle even without proof of negligence, and statutory no-fault compensation does not exclude or replace the common law remedy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
