SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL & ANR. v. SMT. VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 26

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.C. RAY, S.C. AGRAWAL

Case summary

The questions raised for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal involve the interpretation of the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle"' contained in section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')....

Judgment text

SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL & ANR. v. SMT. VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE JULY 17, 1991 [B. C. RAY AND S. C. AGRAWAL, JJ) Motor Vehichles Act, 1939: Sections 2( 18) and 92A-'Motor Vehicle'--Petrol tanker used for transporting petrol-Overturned due to collision with another motor vehicle-Damaged to the extent that it . became immobile-Whether ceases to be a 'Motor Vehicle'-Death due to explosion and fire taking place few hours after the collision-Both . connected and related events-Causal relationship between user of the vehicle and accident-Need not be direct and proximate-Death as a result of accident arising out of 'use of Motor Vehicle'-No fault liability-Nature and scope of. . D Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: Rules 291-A, 291-B, 297(2), 306cA to 306-D. Adjudication of claims under Section 92A of the Ac/- Special Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal for expeditious disposal-Normal procedure prescribed in respect of claims under Section JIOA-Need not be followed.

Words & Phrases: 'use'-'Arisingouto{-Meaningof. Due to a collision on the highway between a Petrol tanker and a truck, the Petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its side at some .. distance from the highway. As a result of it, petrol leaked out and collected nearby. Nearly four hours after the collision an explosioll ,tool enefit of the earlier accident and tried to pilfer petrol from the petrol tanker and while thus pilfering the petrol there was friction which caused ignition and explosion and since an outside agency was responsible for the explosion and fire which situation was created by the villagers themselves the explosion could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of the tanker. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order of the Claims Tribunal before the High Court. The said appeal was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated February 5, 1990.

The learned Single Judge disagreed with the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the explosion was a direct conseql\ence of the attempt to pilfer petrol from the tanker and observed that the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding on the assumption that all the injured persons and deceased were engaged in pilfering· the petrol and the explosio. n was a direct consequence of the same. The learned Single Judge also held that in view of sub-section (4) of section 92A of the Act if there is a wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the deceased or the injured, the claim under section 92A of the Act for compensation fo~ no fault liability cannot be rejected.

With regard to the applicability of section 92A of the Act, the learned Single Judge observed that the fact that at the material time the tanker was not being driven on the Highway but was lying turtle on its side would make no difference apd that it was a vehicle lying on the side of the Highway and would be covered by the expression 'use' in section 92A of the Act and compensation would be payable under no fault liability of section 92A of the Act. He, therefore, directed payment of Rs. 15,000 as compensation under section 92A of the Act to the respondent. The Petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the said decision of the learned Single Judge which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated August 16, 1990.

The Appellate Bench of the High Court has affirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that there was no evidence whatsoever that the person or persons in respect of whose deaths compensation had been claimed under section 92A were themselves committing theft or pilferage of petrol at the time of their deaths and that these victims could have only been curious by-standers '> 1t,h;: use or . hire of a . ship" in s. e~tion 20(2)(l)(h) were hel equivq)ent,0f ,t~. e . expression ''. arising under", ,~11\1 i111>. t ,th. jlt 1 . of . the wicje,r ,eimi:es~ion "connecte,d . wi. th. " fo 1\l1Y ,vtt;\V,, •ho\\'. e)(er,,th,e,expres~ion ". arisi11goutof" is,_on . the•.

of•the Act provides that a claim for compensation under section 92A in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement under stction 92A and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under section 92A shall be disposed ohs aforesaid in the first place. With a view to give effect to the said di. rective contained in section 92B of the Act, the Maharashtra Government has amended the Rules and has inserted special provi- J sioris in rnspect of claims under section 92A in. rules-291A, 291B, 297(2), 306A, 306B, 306C and 3060 of the Rules. The object undedying lhe said provisions is to enable expeditious disposal of a claim •• petiiion under Section 92A of the Act. The said object would be defeated if.

the Claims Tribunal is required to hold a regular trial in the sam~ manner as for•adjudicating a claim petition under section ! JOA of ttie Act. Morever, for awarding compensation under section 92A of the Act, the. Claims Tribunal is required to satisfy itself in respect of the following matters: "' (1) an accident has arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle; (ii) the said accident has resulted in permanent disablement of the person who is making the claim or death of the person whose legal representative is making the claim; (iii) the claim is made against the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident; #- The documents referred to in Rules 29 lA and 306B will enable the Claims Tribunal to ascertain the necessary facts in regard to these matters. The panchnnma and the First Information Report will show S. D. PATIL v. V. U. MORE [AGRAWAL, J. I 53 whether the accident had arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle in question.

The Injury Certificate or the post-n1ortem report will show the nature of injuries and the cause of death. The Registration Certifi- 'cate and Insurance Certificate of the motor vehicle will indicate who is the owner and insurer of the vehicle. In the event of the Claims Tribunal feeling doubtful about the correctness or genuineness of any of these documents or if it considers it necessary to obtain supplementary information or documents, Rules 306A empowers the Claims Tribunal to obtain such supplementary information or documents from the Police, medical or other authorities.

This would show that Rules 291A, 306A and 306B contain adequate provisions which would enable the Claims Tribunal to satisfy itself in respect of the matters necessary for awarding compensation under section 92A of the Act and in view of these special provisions which were introduced in the Rules by the amendments in 1984, the Claims Tribunal is not required to follow the normal procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules with regard to adjudication of a claim under section llOA of the Act for the purpose of making an order on a claim petition under section 92A of the Act. In the result, we find no merit in this special leave petition which is accordingly dismissed. ·By order dated January 7, 1991, while directing issue of notice on the special leave petition, it was ordered that the issue of the said notice shall be subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.

5,000 inthe Registry of this Court towards cost of the respondent and that the notice shall be issued only after the amount of cost has been deposited and the said amount shall be paid over to the respondent on her putting in appearance in this Court and the payment of the amount of cost to the respondent shall be irrespective of the result of the special leave petition. In view of the said order, no further direction with regard to costs is necessary. G. N. Petition dismissed.