Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 165 and 166 – Claim petition – Maintainability of – Compensation – Liability of insurer – Blasting operation carried out in the field of the owner, for digging of the well using battery of the tractor – Stone fell on deceased leading to his death – Tribunal holding that the accident was a vehicular accident and vehicle being used for commercial purpose, there was breach of insurance policy by the owner, awarded compensation fastening the liability on the owner – High Court held that the claim petition was not maintainable since battery being detached from the vehicle and not part of it, the accident did not arise out of use of vehicle – On appeal, held: There has to be some causal relation or the incident must relate to it – It should not be totally unconnected – Keeping in view the evidence on record, the tribunal rightly held that the battery was installed in the tractor and explosives were charged by the battery – Purpose was to dig the well in the field – Vehicle was in use as stipulated u/s. 165 – Thus, the High Court erred on the said score – Furthermore, the vehicle being used for commercial purpose, there was breach of insurance policy and, thus, the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation – Though, the case of insurer that the work of digging of well in a field used for agricultural purpose would embrace an activity associated with agriculture for irrigating the field is accepted, however, this would not help in fastening the liability since there was no analysis of the terms and conditions of the policy and evidence of witnesses by the High Court – Parties relegated to the High Court to determine about fastening of the liability on the insurer or the owner – Until then insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants as determined by the tribunal which would be subject to the conclusion of the remanded appeals.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The tribunal has treated the accident to be a vehicular accident and entertained the claim. The High Court did not analyze any evidence brought on record to come to the conclusion that the battery of the vehicle was practically detached from the vehicle and was not a part of the vehicle. On the contrary, the tribunal noticed that the panchnama of the tractor clearly showed that the tractor was in the field and the blasting machine was found on tractor with wrapped gas pipe and an explosive battery found on the tractor with the wooden cover. It referred to the evidence, to record the finding that the blasting machine was kept on the tractor driven by the driver engaged by the owner and the tractor was used for digging of the well with the blasting machine. The insurer, as is evident, had only raised a singular plea with regard to use of the tractor, namely, ‘commercial purpose’ and on that foundation, it had advanced the stance that there had been fundamental breach of the insurance policy. Keeping in view the evidence on record, the view expressed by the tribunal that the battery was still installed on the vehicle and the power was drawn from the battery for explosive purposes, is accepted. [Para 6] [568-B-D]
1.2 Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it vivid that the tribunal can adjudicate the claims for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of use of motor vehicles. Thus, the fundamental requirement is that the accident should arise out of the use of the motor vehicle. If there is no use of the motor vehicle, the question of vehicular accident will not arise. Section 2(44) defines ‘tractor’ to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller. [Paras 7, 8] [569-A-B, D-E]
1.3 It is limpid that the expression ‘use of the vehicle’ under certain circumstances can be attracted when the vehicle is stationary or static. The causal relationship should exist between violation and the accident caused. There has to be some act done by the person concerned in causing the accident. The commission or omission must have some nexus with the accident. The word ‘use’ need not have an intimate and direct nexus with the accident. The court has to bear in mind that the phraseology used by the legislature is “accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle”. The scope has been enlarged by such use of the phraseology and this Court taking note of the beneficial provision has placed a wider meaning on the same. There has to be some causal relation or the incident must relate to it. It should not be totally unconnected. Therefore, in each case what is required to be seen is whether there has been some causal relation or the event is related to the act. [Paras 22, 24] [576-E; 577-F-H]
1.4 As is evincible, the battery was installed in the tractor and the explosives were charged by the battery. The purpose was to dig the well in the field. In such an obtaining factual matrix, it would be an erroneous perception to say that the vehicle was not in use as stipulated under Section 165. Hence, the Division Bench erred on that score.[Para 25] [578-A-B]
1.5 The insurer advanced the plea that the tractor was insured under “Farmer Package Policy” for agriculture purpose by the owner of the vehicle. However, it was used for commercial purpose by mounting a blasting machine thereon. That use was in breach of insurance policy and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation. The insurer also examined its employee to establish the fact that the owner of the vehicle had committed breach of insurance policy by using it for commercial purpose and for transporting the blasting machine. [Para 26] [578-C-D]
1.6 It is noticed that the battery of the tractor was used for digging of well in a field used for agricultural purpose. The insured had contended that the work of digging of well in a field used for agricultural purpose would embrace an activity associated with agriculture for irrigating the field and is answered in the affirmative. This does not help in fastening the liability because there has been no analysis as regards the terms and conditions of the policy and its fundamental character. The High Court did not deal with any of these matters, the adjudication whereof has now become inevitable to answer the issue about the liability to be borne by the insurer, the owner of the vehicle (insured) or otherwise. This adjudication requires analysis of relevant material including the insurance policy and evidence of concerned witnesses, for understanding the terms and conditions of the policy regard being had to nature of policy and the extent of the liability of the insurer, if any. As the High Court did not consider this aspect at all, it is deemed appropriate to relegate the parties to the High Court for determining the singular issue about fastening of the liability on the insurer or the owner of the vehicle. Under these circumstances, until that issue is finally decided, the insurance company must pay the compensation amount payable to the claimants as determined by the tribunal in terms of the award, which payment will be subject to the outcome of the remanded appeals to be decided by the High Court. The claimants need not contest the remanded proceedings before the High Court as it is remitted only for limited purpose to determine the liability amongst the insurer and owner of the vehicle. [Para 27] [579-G-H; 580-A-B]
Kanhei Rana and Another v. Gangadhar Swain and Others AIR 1993 ORI 89 – approved.
Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More (1991) 3 SCC 530 : [1991] 3 SCR 26 ; Pushpa Rani Chopra v. Anokha Singh 1975 ACJ 396 (Del HC) ; General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. v. S. Satalingappa 1979 ACJ 452 (Kant HC) ; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suman Navnath Rajguru 1985 ACJ 243 (Bom HC); Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (1997) 8 SCC
683 :[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 643 ; Samir Chanda v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation (1998) 6 SCC 605 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 219 ; Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad (Dead) and Others (2002)
3 SCC 661: [2002] 2 SCR 290; General Manager,
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Others (1994) 2 SCC 176 – referred to.
Heyman v. Darwins Ltd. [1942] AC 356 : [1942] 1 All ER 337; Union of India v. E.B. Aaby’s Rederi A/S [1975] AC 797 : [1974] 2 All ER 874 ; Samick Lines Co. Ltd. v. Owners of the Antonis P. Lemos [1985] 2 WLR 468 ; Newberry v. Simmonds [1961] 2 ALL ER
318 ; Smart v. Allan [1962] 3 ALL ER 893 ; Elliott v. Grey [1960] 1 QB 367 : [1959] 3 All ER 733 ;
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v. R.J. Green & Lloyd Pty. Ltd. (1965) 114 CLR 437 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.