Fazal Ali, J. - (1.) With the emergence of an ultra-modern age which has led to strides of progress in all spheres of life, we have switched from fast to faster vehicular traffic which has come as a boon to many, though some times in the case of some it has also proved to be a misfortune. Such are the cases of the victims of motor accidents resulting from rash and negligent driving which take away quite a number of precious lives of the people of our country. At a time when we are on the way to progress and prosperity, our country can ill-afford to lose so many precious lives every year, for though the percentage of deaths caused by motor accidents in other countries is high, in our own country the same is not by any means negligible, but is a factor to be reckoned with. Our law-makers being fully conscious of the expanding needs of our nation have passed laws and statutes to minimise motor accidents and to provide for adequate compensation to the families who face serious socio-economic problems if the main bread-earner loses his life in the motor accident. The time is ripe for serious consideration of creating no-fault liability. Having regard to the directive principles of State policy, the poverty of the ordinary run of victims of automobile accidents, the compulsory nature of insurance of motor vehicles the nationalisation of general insurance companies and the expanding trend towards nationalisation of bus transport, the law of torts based on no fault needs reform. While S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the constitution of Claims Tribunals for determining the compensation payable, Section 110-A provides for the procedure and circumstances under which the family of a victim of a motor accident can get compensation and lays down the various norms, though not as exhaustively as it should have. The Courts, however, have spelt out and enunciated valuable principles from time to time which guide the determination of compensation in a particular situation. Unfortunately, however, Sec. 95 (2) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act limits the compensation to be paid by an Insurance Company to Rs. 2,000/- only in respect of death to any third party and this is one disconcerting aspect on which we shall have to say something in a later part of our judgment.
(2.) With this little preface we now take up the facts in the appeals by certificate filed by B. L. Gupta and Smt. Majushri Raha in this Court, and which after being consolidated have been disposed of by one common judgment both by the Claims Tribunal as also by the High Court. Manjushri Raha, the main appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 1968 will, in short, be referred to hereafter as "Raha, whereas respondents Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company would be referred to as "Oriental Company and the New India Insurance Co. as "New India Company. Smt. Manjula Devi Bhuta representing the owner of vehicle No. MPG-4615 will be referred to as "Bhuta, whereas B. L. Gupta the owner of vehicle No. MPG-4307 belonging to the M. P. Speedways Company would be referred to as "Gupta. Padmavati Shastri, the respondent in one of the appeals, would be referred to as "Shastri. The appeals arise in the following circumstances.
(3.) Claim Case No. 6 of 1962 was filed by Raha along with her two minor children against Bhuta, Sushil Kumar driver of vehicle No. MPG-4615, Oriental Company. New India Company, Gupta owner of the M. P. Speedways Company and Ram Swaroop driver of vehicle No. MPG-4307. The applicant Raha claimed compensation for a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- against the respondents under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly Shastri filed Claim Case No. 5 of 1962 against the respondents mentioned above claiming Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation from the aforesaid respondents. Both these claims were consolidated and heard and decided by one common judgment by the Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. The facts giving rise to the claims of Raha and Shastri were that on April 10, 1962 Satyendra Nath Raha the husband of Raha and Uma Shanker Shastri the husband of Shastri were traveling in vehicle No. MPG-4307 (owned by Gupta of the M. P. Speedways Company) from Bhind to Gwalior. When the bus travelled a distance of about 26 miles on the Bhina-Gwalior road, another bus bearing No. MPG-4615 belonging to Bhuta was seen coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the M. P. Speedways Company was Ram Swaroop while that of the bus belonging to Bhuta was Sushil Kumar. When the two buses were approaching in opposite directions, both the drivers being negligent and having failed to take the necessary precautions of keeping to their left led to a head-on collision of the two buses as a consequence of which the two persons, namely, Satyendra Nath Raha and Uma Shanker Shastri sustained fatal injuries to which they succumbed on the same day in the Gohad Hospital. The facts and circumstances under which the accident took place have not been disputed by counsel for the parties, nor have the essential findings of fact given by the Claims Tribunal and the High Court been challenged before us. The appeal, therefore, lies within a very narrow compass.;