CLX-RAJ-HC-2026-005639
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant Versus Kur Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Rajasthan High Court · Rajasthan
DismissedCore ratio / Key holding
The cause for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises when loss is caused by the 'use of motor vehicle', and not solely for driving, as negligence is only one species of causes of action for claims in motor vehicle accidents.
Motor vehicles answer the description of 'dangerous thing' for the purpose of strict liability rule, making a person responsible even for accidental harm caused by their use, irrespective of wrongful intent or negligence.
When a disabled motor vehicle is being towed, it remains 'in use', and its driver has a higher duty of care to ensure the safety of the towing vehicle and its driver, especially if the towing is at the disabled vehicle driver's request.
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Liability – 'Use of motor vehicle' – Strict Liability – Negligence.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – 'Use of motor vehicle' – Disabled vehicle – Towing – Duty of care – Liability of driver.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Defence – Volenti non fit injuria – Contributory negligence – Proof.
Issues for determination
- Whether compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for an accident involving a motor vehicle, requires proof of negligence in driving, or if liability can arise from the 'use of motor vehicle' even when it is disabled and being towed.
Ratio decidendi
- The cause for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises when loss is caused by the 'use of motor vehicle', and not solely for driving, as negligence is only one species of causes of action for claims in motor vehicle accidents.
- Motor vehicles answer the description of 'dangerous thing' for the purpose of strict liability rule, making a person responsible even for accidental harm caused by their use, irrespective of wrongful intent or negligence.
- When a disabled motor vehicle is being towed, it remains 'in use', and its driver has a higher duty of care to ensure the safety of the towing vehicle and its driver, especially if the towing is at the disabled vehicle driver's request.
Important points
- Held, liability under Motor Vehicles Act arises from 'use of motor vehicle', not merely negligent driving, extending to disabled vehicles being towed.
- Clarified, motor vehicles are 'dangerous things' under strict liability, making users responsible for accidental harm irrespective of intent or negligence.
- Rejected, defence of 'volenti non fit injuria' for tractor driver towing heavier vehicle, as no evidence of fault was adduced by the insurer.
- Affirmed, the truck driver was solely at fault for the accident, having a higher duty of care for the disabled vehicle being towed at his request.
Keywords
Motor Vehicles ActNegligenceStrict LiabilityUse of Motor VehicleVolenti Non Fit Injuria
Related orders from this authority
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000020The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant Versus Manju W/o Dinesh Kumar Meena - Respondent
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000019Shahida and Others - Appellants Versus Mubrak Shah and Others - Respondents
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000015Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Satveer Singh - Appellant Versus United India Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000016United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant Versus Nine 2 Nine Super Market - Respondent
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000027Buddharam S/o Shri Moolchand Saini - Appellant Versus Sher Singh Meena S/o Shri Khyaliram Meena ANDO RS – Respondents
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000014Jakir Hussain Son of Shri Mohammad Hussain - Appellant Versus Shantilal Sansi Son of Shri Jagrup - Respondents
Read the full order on ClaimLex
Get the complete order text, a licence-stamped PDF, the citator (which orders cite this one), AI-powered answers, and save it to your matters.
Editorial summary prepared by ClaimLex — for reference only, not the official record. Please refer to the original order issued by the authority for the authoritative text.