LAW OF TORTS PROJECT ON
CASE STUDY: - M.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and Ors. Vs. Abdul Rahman and Ors. AIR 1997 MADHYA
SUBMITTED BY:SNEHA B.A.LL.B (SEM 2nd) ROLL NO.983061 KIIT LAW SCHOOL
R.P. Vs.K. with a bus.
FACTS OF THE CASE:In the case. the respondent is entitled to?
.S.M. v. Abdul Rahman there was an accident of a motor cyclist carrying a grown up person and a child of four years on the pillion. Corpn. JJ. In this case there was found to be no evidence that the grown up person and the child had in any way contributed to the causing of the accident. M.P. it was held that in his case full compensation was payable as the child could not be deemed to be guilty of contributory negligence. which resulted in the death of all the three persons riding the motor cycle. Abdul Rahman and Ors AIR 1997 MADHYA PRADESH 248
HON'BLE JUDGES:S. The claim of the legal representatives of these pillion riders was not affected by the plea of contributory negligence.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:` Whether the child will be made liable under contributory negligence? ` Whether the accident was due to the contributory negligence or composite negligence? ` To what amount of compensation if any. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.T. Dubey Dipak Misra. Regarding compensation for the death of a child.
the Corporation should not have been saddled with the liability. and the finding of the Tribunal should not be interfered with as the same has been based on proper appreciation of materials on record. therefore. he cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence. ` It was seriously contended that the deceased persons suffered their late because of their contributory negligence in as much as they accompanied the rash and negligent rider. It is further submitted by him that as the Tribunal has recorded a finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus as well as the Motorcycle the accident had occurred. the grown up is concerned. therefore.ARGUMENTS:APPELLANTS SIDE` It was urged that there was contributory negligence by the deceased persons and. He has also canvassed that the finding of the Tribunal is. contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers though he has proceeded on the assumption of composite negligence.
. in fact. the question of Contributory negligence of the child and the other deceased does not arise.
` The award has put forth that the question of contributory negligence is not attracted in a case of child of four years. he was not at the wheel and.
` It was held that the apportionment of liability should not have been done by the Tribunal and each of the tort-feasors should have been held jointly and severally liable(the appellant as well as the owner of Motorcycle). ` Relating to contributory negligence on the part of a child of tender age there is no doubt that the concept of contributory negligence cannot be made applicable to a child.
` ³A child functions according to his own reasoning and his intelligence. A child functions according to his own reasoning and his intelligence.DECISION OF THE COURT
` The court dismissed the appeal without any costs(no order as to costs). Logicality and rationality are not expected from a child as a child of tender age has no continuous thinking process and is governed by his impulse. was not liable for contributory negligence. liability cannot be apportioned. instinct and innocence therfore the concept of contributory negligence cannot be made applicable to a child´ ` ³In cases of composite negligence. the child of four. and the joint tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable".It was held that Riyaz.
. Logicality and rationality are not expected from a child as a child of tender age has no continuous thinking process and is governed by his impulse. instinct and innocence.
the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall. (2) The Claim Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.feasors and the just compensation to which he is entitled cannot be reduced for non-impleading of the other joint tort. ± Clause 168 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall deliver the copies of the award to the parties within fifteen days of the award and that the person against whom the award is made shall deposit the amount awarded within thirty days of announcement of the award. ± Section 168 corresponds to section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. ` Compensation in case of accident due to composite negligence of drivers of two vehiclesWhere a claim petition is filed by the injured or legal representatives of the deceased due to injury arising out of use of motor vehicles due to the composite negligence of drivers of the two vehicles the claimant can recover compensation from any one of the joint tort. ± (1) On receipt of an application for
compensation made under section 166. Objects and Reasons. (3) When an award is made under this section.MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. Corresponding Law. 1988
168. within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal. hold an inquiry into the claim or. as the case may be : Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person. such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. the Claims Tribunal shall. each of the claims and. 1939. after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard. as the case may be. subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them.
.feasors. deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct. Award of the Claims Tribunal.
Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Mrs. Thorne. Manjusri Raha 1968 MPLJ 302
. 1967 Acc CJ 183 Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.CASES REFERRED:Gough v.