JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 4.2.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT No. 180 of 1995.
2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent on the allegation that he was posted as a driver in Bus No. UMH 9158 and was driving it from Jaunpur to Pratapgarh Patti on 5.7.1991. The aforesaid bus belonging to the appellant met with an accident with a truck, which was being driven rashly and negligently. The claimant who was driver of the aforesaid bus of the appellant applied break but the truck collided with the bus, with the result that the claimant received injuries in his right leg and became unconscious. He was confined to the Hospital for a period of about two months and has claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 52,000. The said claim has been decreed in part by the Tribunal. It has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation against the appellant.
6. An argument was raised before the Claims Tribunal that no award can be passed against the appellant, as there was no fault on the part of the appellant. It is not the case of the claimant that accident took place on account of any fault of the appellant. This point has been met by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon a judgment given in the case of New India Insurance Company Limited v. Maimun Nisha and Ors., 1997 (1) TAC 475. The aforesaid case has no application and is distinguishable on facts. Therein the person was a Coolie and was travelling in the offending truck. The vehicle met with an accident as the driver of the vehicle lost control over the same. On these facts of case, it was held that the claimants are entitled to get the compensation amount against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. The accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle and the deceased was there in the capacity of an employee and the vehicle met with the accident on account of negligence of the driver who was employed by the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the act of his servants and agents. In the case in hand the driver of the bus received injuries at the most in course of his employment for which UPSRTC was not at all at fault. The fault, if any, was either of the truck driver or of the claimant himself. The claimant has not suffered any loss or injury on account of any negligence of the appellant. The appellant, not in any way has been held to be responsible for the accident and the resultant injury to the claimant. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna and Ors. v. J.P. Sharma and Ors., 1998 (2) AC 595, has held as follows :
"It is well-settled that to succeed a claim of compensation for injury suffered or for the death caused in accident by the use of Motor vehicle for holding the owner, driver and insurer liable to pay compensation, proof of negligence is necessary. Therefore, where a workman or the legal representative of the deceased workman prefers the Forum of the Tribunal to claim . compensation for the injury suffered or for the death of a workman in a motor accident they undertake the burden of proving of negligence of owner/insurer so as to make them liable to pay compensation."
7. Negligence of the owner of the offended motor vehicle is the sine qua non for the claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.