1. Claim petition under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Death resulting from a stone flying during blasting operations powered by a tractor's installed battery. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 688
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
A motor vehicle does not cease to be such on merely being temporarily out of use.
“Use” of motor vehicle not confined to its being mobile. Motor vehicle can be in use even while stationary.
“Arising out of” in “Arising out of the use of motor vehicle” is of wider connotation than “caused by” and of lesser proximity.
A motor vehicle does not cease to be such on merely being temporarily out of use.
“Use” of motor vehicle not confined to its being mobile. Motor vehicle can be in use even while stationary.
“Arising out of” in “Arising out of the use of motor vehicle” is of wider connotation than “caused by” and of lesser proximity.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 2(28), 2(44) and 165 – A motor vehicle does not cease to be such on merely being temporarily out of use – “Use” of motor vehicle not confined to its being mobile – Motor vehicle can be in use even while stationary – “Arising out of the use of motor vehicle” – “Arising out of” – Of wider connotation than “caused by” – Of lesser proximity – “Related events” and “causal relation”. (Para 11, 13, 15, 17, 22)
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether using a tractor's battery for blasting constitutes use of motor vehicle and whether such use for well-digging violates agricultural insurance policy terms. (Para 2 , 4 , 26 )
3. The battery was installed in the vehicle; use includes stationary vehicles, and arising out of requires a causal connection that need not be direct or proximate. (Para 6 , 7 , 13 , 16 , 24 , 25 )
4. The expression use of motor vehicle includes stationary vehicles; accidents arising out of such use require a causal relationship, which may be less immediate than direct causation. (Para 13 , 16 , 24 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Matter remanded to determine liability between insurer and owner — Insurer directed to deposit compensation pending final determination. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. Does the expression use of motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act require the vehicle to be in motion?
No, the term use has a wider connotation that covers periods when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary, including instances where the vehicle is immobile due to breakdown, mechanical defect, or accident. (Para 13 , 22 )
7. What is the legal distinction between an accident caused by and one arising out of the use of a motor vehicle?
Caused by connotes a direct or proximate relationship of cause and effect. Arising out of has a wider connotation, requiring only a causal connection or related event, which may be less immediate. (Para 15 , 16 , 24 )
8. How is the causal relationship determined when a vehicle is stationary during an accident?
The court examines whether there is a causal relation or if the event is related to the act; the connection need not be intimate or direct but must not be totally unconnected. (Para 17 , 24 )
9. Does using a vehicle's installed battery to power external equipment constitute use of the motor vehicle?
Yes, if the battery is installed in the vehicle and power is drawn from it for a purpose, such activity is regarded as use of the vehicle under Section 165 of the Act. (Para 6 , 25 )
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
