Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.C. RAY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another, Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, Respondent
Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 14822 of 1990.
Decided on 17-7-1991.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. S. V. Murthy, Mr. S.M. Puri and Mr. Pramod Dayal, Advocates with him, for Petitioners; Mr. Ashok. H. Desai, Sr. Advocate, Mr.George Kurian, Mr. A. P.Vaze and Mr. G. B. 1772 Sathe, Advocates with him, for Respondents.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 92A – Accident – Death/Injuries – Compensation - Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault - There was a collision between a petrol tanker bearing Registration and a truck bearing Registration on National Highway near village - Petrol tanker was proceeding from Pune side to Bangalore whereas truck was coming from opposite direction. As a result of the said collision, petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from highway. As a result of overturning of petrol tanker, the petrol contained in it leaked out and collected nearby - At about 7.15 a.m., an explosion took place in said petrol tanker resulting in fire - A number of persons who had assembled near petrol tanker sustained burn injuries and a few of them succumbed to said injuries. One of those who died as a result of such injuries was Deepak Uttam More - Held, in event of Claims Tribunal feeling doubtful about correctness or genuineness of any of these documents or if it considers. it necessary to obtain supplementary information or documents, Rules 306A empowers Claims Tribunal to obtain such supplementary information or documents from Police, medical or other authorities - This would show that Rr. 291 A, 306A and 306B contain adequate provisions which would enable Claims Tribunal to satisfy itself in respect of matters necessary for awarding compensation U/ S. 92A of Act and in view of these special provisions which were introduced in Rules by amendments in 1984, Claims Tribunal is not required to follow normal procedure prescribed under Act and the Rules with regard to adjudication of a claim u/ S. 110A of Act for purpose of making an order on a claim petition u/ S. 92A of Act - Petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More:
Case Overview and Facts * The case involves a collision between a petrol tanker (MKL-7461) and a truck on National Highway No. 4 near village Kavatha, Maharashtra, on October 29, 1987, at about 3 a.m. (!) (!) * The collision caused the petrol tanker to overturn, leak petrol, and remain on its side for approximately four and a half hours. (!) (!) * At about 7:15 a.m., an explosion and fire occurred due to the leaked petrol, causing burn injuries to bystanders and resulting in the death of Deepak Uttam More. (!) (!) * The respondent, the mother of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking Rs. 15,000 as compensation. (!) (!) * The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially dismissed the claim, ruling that the explosion was an independent event caused by villagers pilfering petrol, not an accident "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle." (!) (!) * The High Court (both Single Judge and Division Bench) allowed the respondent's appeal, holding that the explosion was a direct consequence of the initial accident and that the tanker was still in "use" even when stationary. (!) (!)
Legal Issues and Interpretation * The primary legal question was the interpretation of the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (!) * Definition of "Motor Vehicle": The Court rejected the argument that the overturned tanker ceased to be a "motor vehicle" because it was immobile. It held that a vehicle does not cease to be a motor vehicle merely because it is disabled or lying on its side, provided there is a reasonable prospect of it being made mobile again. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Definition of "Use": The Court adopted a wider construction of the word "use," citing precedents like Elliott v. Grey and Government Insurance Office of N.S.W. v. R. J. Greens. It held that "use" includes periods when the vehicle is stationary, parked, or disabled, not just when it is in motion. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * Causal Relationship ("Arising Out Of"): The Court distinguished between "caused by" (direct/proximate) and "arising out of" (less proximate, connected with). It held that "arising out of" requires a causal relationship but need not be direct or immediate. (!) (!) (!) * The Court concluded that the explosion and fire were connected events to the initial collision because the tanker was carrying highly combustible material and was left in a dangerous condition for hours without intervention. (!) * The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the victims were pilfering petrol; the High Court had found no evidence that the deceased or injured were engaged in theft. (!) (!)
Procedural Aspects under Section 92A * The Court clarified that claims under Section 92A do not require the full-fledged procedure of a trial under Section 110A (which involves framing issues, recording evidence, etc.). (!) * Instead, the Claims Tribunal must follow the special expedited procedure introduced by the 1984 amendments to the Rules (specifically Rules 291A, 306A, and 306B). (!) (!) (!) * The Tribunal can award compensation based primarily on documents like the registration certificate, insurance certificate, panchnama, and FIR, without holding a regular trial. (!) (!) * Rule 306A empowers the Tribunal to obtain supplementary information from police or medical authorities if needed. (!) * The object of Section 92A is to provide expeditious compensation (Rs. 15,000 for death) without proof of fault, which would be defeated by requiring a full trial procedure. (!) (!)
Outcome * The Supreme Court found no merit in the special leave petition and dismissed it, upholding the High Court's order directing the payment of compensation under Section 92A. (!)
JUDGMENT
S. C. AGRAWAL, J.:—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).
2. On October 29, 1987, at about 3 a.m., there was a collision between a petrol tanker bearing Registration No. MKL-7461 and a truck bearing Registration No. MEH-4197 on the National Highway No. 4 near village Kavatha, in District Satara, Maharashtra. The petrol tanker was proceeding from Pune side to Bangalore whereas the truck was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the said collision, the petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from the highway. As a result of the overturning of the petrol tanker, the petrol contained in it leaked out and collected nearby. At about 7.15 a.m., an explosion took place in the said petrol tanker resulting in fire. A number of persons who had assembled near the petrol tanker sustained burn injuries and a few of them succumbed to the said injuries. One of those who died as a result of such injuries was Deepak Uttam More. The respondent is the mother of Deepak Uttam More. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the said petrol tanker and Petitioner No. 2, the insurer of the same.
3. The respondent, as the legal representative of her deceased son, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara (Claims Tribunal) under S. 110 of the Act claiming Rs. 75,000/-as compensation from the petitioners. She also made a claim for payment of Rs. 15,000/-as compensation u/ S. 92A of the Act. It appears that claim petitions were also filed by the legal representatives of other persons who had died as a result.of the burn injuries sustained by them in the explosion and. fire in the petrol tanker. The petitioners contested the claim petitions filed by the respondent and other claimants u/S.92A of the Act and raised objection with regard to thejurisdiction of tne Claims Tribunal to entertain such petitions on the ground that explosion and fire resulting in injuries to the deceased could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Claims Tribunal, decided all the claim petitions filed under S. 92A of the Act by a common order dated December 2, 1989 whereby the said petitions were dismissed on the ground that the explosion could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of the petrol tanker and that the provisions of S. 92A of the Act were not attracted. The Claims Tribunal was of the view that the explosion and the fire which took place after about four hours had no connection whatsoever with the accident which took place at 3 a.m. and that the explosion and the fire was altogether an independent accident. The Claims Tribunal also observed that the villagers tried to take the benefit 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 consequence 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 explosion was a direct consequence of the same. The learned single Judge also held that in view of sub-see. (4) of S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
