KAJAL DAS Vs. NIRODELAL DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 29.06.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 511 of 2008 rejecting the claim petition on the ground that the claimant himself being the driver of the vehicle could not file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act).

(2.) THERE can be no manner of doubt that in a petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, negligence has to be proved. The accident may arise out of the use of the vehicle but that does not mean that there is negligence. In the present case, the claimant has only stated that he himself was driving the vehicle but while trying to save a cow, his vehicle went off the road. Therefore, there is no negligence of any other party and the claim petition is not maintainable.

(3.) THE next judgment relied upon by Mr. Bhowmik is Ningamma & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.:, 2009 AIR SCW 4916. In the case before the Apex Court, the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle. He had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and was driving the vehicle. A claim petition was filed under Section 163A and the question which arose for decision by the Apex Court was whether any compensation was liable to be paid to the person, who had borrowed the vehicle from the owner. The Apex Court answered this question in the following terms: -