Court case(2001) 2 SCC 9

A jeep was being driven on the road when its front tyre burst; the vehicle went out of control and overturned, and a man died in the accident. His widow and other legal representatives (the appellants) claimed compensation under s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the owner and the insurer of the jeep. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the accident had occurred because of the tyre burst and that no negligence on the part of the driver had been established; treating the accident as one without fault, it dismissed the claim for compensation under s. 166, leaving the claimants with only the limited no-fault amount then available under s. 140. The High Court affirmed the dismissal. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. K.T. Thomas J. observed that the claim under s. 166 is ordinarily founded on negligence, but that the common law also recognises liability without fault. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - that a person who for his own purposes brings on his land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for the damage it causes - has been applied to things dangerous in themselves, and a motor vehicle on the road is such a source of danger to other road users. The no-fault provision in s. 140 was intended only to give quick limited relief and did not exhaust the claimant's rights or exclude the strict-liability principle in a claim under s. 166. A tyre burst is not an act of God or a cause outside the Rylands principle. Applying that principle, the owner (and therefore the insurer) was liable even though the driver's negligence was not proved. The Court assessed and awarded compensation with interest.