The High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Chandigarh Bench) has held that an accident caused by an avalanche or glacier fall can still give rise to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act if it arose from the use of a motor vehicle. The no-fault liability covers even an ‘Act of God’ situation. Further, where involvement and use of the vehicle are established, compensation may still be granted under Section 164 on a no-fault basis.
The Court also held that Section 164 automatically comes into play when negligence is not proved but vehicle involvement is established. Emphasising that owner-driver’s legal heirs cannot claim compensation under a third-party insurance cover unless the policy specifically covers the owner’s risk, the Court clarified that since Dr. Rajiv Rampal was driving his own vehicle and no premium had been paid for owner-driver coverage, compensation for his death was declined.
Briefly, the appeals arose from a motor accident that occurred on 9 March 1997 near Dalhousie. Members of the same family, including Dr. Rajiv Rampal, were travelling in a car when a large mass of glacier/snow fell on the vehicle, causing it to plunge into a deep gorge. The accident resulted in the death of Dr. Rajiv Rampal and grievous injuries to the other occupants. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, dismissed all claim petitions, holding that the accident was an ‘Act of God’ and that no negligence of any driver or vehicle had been proved.
The claimants contended that Dr. Rajiv Rampal was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently despite warnings to stop due to snowfall. However, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the sudden fall of a glacier on the car and not by any negligent act attributable to the driver or any other vehicle.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Parmod Goyal observed that the evidence on record clearly established that all the victims were travelling in the insured vehicle when the avalanche occurred. Therefore, even if the accident was an ‘Act of God’, the injuries and death had arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Court held that the concept of no-fault liability extends even to cases where the accident is caused by natural forces, provided the use of the motor vehicle is established.
The Court further noted that after the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, which brought Section 164 into force from 1 April 2022, the legislative scheme was simplified. Compensation can now be claimed either on proof of fault under Section 166 or on the basis of no-fault liability under Section 164 where the use of the vehicle is proved, irrespective of fault.
The Court held that where a claimant fails to establish rash or negligent driving but successfully proves involvement or use of the motor vehicle, Section 164 automatically becomes applicable. It is not necessary that the original claim petition should have been filed under Section 164 or formally converted into one under that provision.
