SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Kalim Khan & Others – Appellant(s)
Versus
Fimidabee & Others – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 87858786 OF 2015
Decided On : 03-07-2018
(1991) 3 SCC 530; [1961] 2 ALL ER 3183; [1962] 3 ALL ER 893; [1960] 1 QB 367 : [1959] 3 All ER 733; (1965) 114 CLR 437; 1975 ACJ 396 (Del HC); 1979 ACJ 452 (Kant HC); 1985 ACJ 243 (Bom HC); [1942] AC 356 : [1942] 1 All ER 337; [1975] AC 797 : [1974] 2 All ER 874; [1985] 2 WLR 468; (1998) 6 SCC 605; (2002) 3 SCC 661; AIR 1993 ORI 89 – Referred
(b) Administration of justice – Insurer claiming fundamental breach of insurance policy and denying its liability – Courts below not analyzing this issue – Matter remitted for limited purpose to determine the liability amongst the insurer and owner of the vehicle. (Para 27)
(1994) 2 SCC 176 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
On 08.04.2005 at about 4.15 p.m., when the deceased was returning towards his house after purchasing certain articles from the grocery shop, a heavy stone came flying and fell on his head, as a consequence of which, he sustained grievous injuries and was carried for treatment in a jeep to the hospital where he was declared dead. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the stone fell on the deceased due to blasting operation carried out for digging of well in the field of respondent No. 1. It is further put forth that the tractor belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the respondent No. 4 was used for digging up well by keeping the blasting machine and, therefore, the causing of death by the use of the tractor was established.
The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 9,30,000/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
High Court set aside the award.
Finding of the Court:
Instant was a motor accident.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, CJI
The legal representatives of the deceased Firoz preferred a claim petition being MAC Petition No. 64 of 2006 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the tribunal’), Washim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs. 15 lacs on the foundation that the deceased was an Assistant Teacher in Urdu Primary School at Pusad run by Zilla Parishad, Yeotmal and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 8,123/and they were dependent on the income of the deceased. The assertion in the claim petition was that land situated in survey number 136 of village Kajleshwar, Tq Karanja, Washim District was belonging to Respondent No. 1 who had commenced the work for digging of well in the above agricultural land. On 08.04.2005 at about 4.15 p.m., when the deceased was returning towards his house after purchasing certain articles from the grocery shop, a heavy stone came flying and fell on his head, as a consequence of which, he sustained grievous injuries and was carried for treatment in a jeep to the hospital where he was declared dead. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the stone fell on the deceased due to blasting operation carried out for digging of well in the field of respondent No. 1. It is further put forth that the tractor belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the respondent No. 4 was used for digging up well by keeping the blasting machine and, therefore, the causing of death by the use of the tractor was established.
2. The tribunal, appreciating the materials brought on record, came to hold that digging of the well with use of blasting machine was carried on in the field of the owner and the tractor was used for digging of the well with the blasting machine. Thereafter, it proceeded to deal with fixing of the liability and the quantum of the compensation. On the first aspect, it took note of the submission advanced on behalf of the insurer that the owner had committed breach of the policy by using the tractor for commercial use. To bolster the said stance, the insurer asserted that the owner had not taken permission from the competent authority for carrying on the blasting work in his field and, hence, there was violation of the policy. On behalf of the owner, the stand was taken that the tractor was used for agricultural purposes, for digging of the well was carried on for the irrigation of the crops which work was incidental to agriculture and hence, there was no violation of the policy.
3. The tribunal came to hold that on the basis of the material brought on record, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and, therefore, there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy. It further opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to vehicular accident because of the evidence brought on record. Emphasis was laid on the fundamental breach of the insurance policy by the owner and, ultimately the liability was fastened on him directing him and other respondent to pay the compensation of Rs. 9,30,000/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
4. Two appeals were preferred before the High Court challenging the award of the tribunal. The High Court noted that the power for trigger of the explosives came from the battery of the tractor which was parked nearby and as explosion took place, a large stone flew in air and fell on the head of the deceased who was standing in front of a shop that was 300 ft. away. It addressed to the concept of ‘use of motor vehicle’ and in that context stated that the tractor, when it is stationary with the additional implements/machines can be run using the power generated by its engine for thrashing and cutting agriculture produce. It also dwelt upon the concept that when a storage battery of a vehicle is disconnected and taken for some other use, sometimes it is used for other purposes without disconnecting the ba
Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v. R.J. Green & Lloyd Pty. Ltd.
Pushpa Rani Chopra v. Anokha Singh
General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. v. S. Satalingappa
Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Samir Chanda v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation
Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad (Dead)
Kanhei Rana v. Gangadhar Swain
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.