IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Death in motor accident – Claimants need not establish particular manner in which injuries have been sustained by injured or deceased but that does not mean that simply because there was a car somehow involved, provisions of MVA would apply – Some link between car and death has to be established.
(2) Standard of proof in a criminal case is higher, either beyond reasonable doubt or ruling out of any other possibility; whereas in a civil case preponderance of probability is the standard.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. One Anand, sat in the vehicle driven by his friend, the appellant Dilip, on 29th November 2009 and three days later, on 03.12.2009 he was found dead near Binjkot village, PS Chalradhar Nagar. Rajshri - Anand’s wife lodged FIR No.963 of 2009 at PS Kotwali, District Raigarh, thus setting in motion the machinery in criminal law. The chargesheet alleged that a total of three accused persons in furtherance of a conspiracy, kidnapped Anand, killed him in a premeditated fashion and disposed of his mortal remains. Somewhat parallelly, Rajshri and her three children filed a claim petition vide claim Case No.37 of 2011 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal¹[MACT], Raigarh, seeking compensation of approximately Rs. 26,00,000/-, alleging that Anand, was killed inside Dilip’s vehicle and hence the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence.

3. In the criminal case being Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2010, vide judgment dated 30th November 2012, Dilip was convicted under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²[IPC]. His appeal to the High Court succeeded and in terms of judgment dated 18th November 2015, he was acquitted of all charges primarily on account of the fact that the last seen theory, on which the case of the prosecution rested, could not be proved.

4. The Tribunal, while holding that rashness and negligence could not be proved, held the death of Anand, to be covered under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,³[MVA] observing that the dominant intention at play was not the murder of Anand, but the injuries suffered by him were inflicted while they were in the vehicle, eventually leading to his death. Another reason for the Tribunal’s conclusion was that Dilip, failed to deny the case of the claimants and as such accepted their version of events. A total amount of Rs.5,64,000/- with 7% interest was awarded. The High Court agreed with the findings of the Tribunal and enhanced total compensation to Rs.8,60,832/- with 6% interest on the enhanced amount.

5. The short question before us is whether the death of Anand ‘arises out of’ the use of the motor vehicle thereby making Dilip and/or his insurer liable to compensate the respondents?

6. In a recent decision, this Court in Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1111 while considering a case of a passenger in an autorickshaw that was parked on the side of the road, being injured by a branch of a tree falling on top of the said vehicle, referred to earlier precedents in connection with ‘arising out of’. Relevant extract of the decision is as follows:

“12. The question that arises is whether the falling of a tree on an autorickshaw, would qualify as an accident for which a claim can be filed. The phrase emphasised by us in the Section above was, in its corresponding form in the preceding legislation interpreted by this Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More,:

“26. These decisions indicate that the word “use”, in the context of motor vehicles, has been construed in a wider sense to include the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary, being either parked on the road and when it is not in a position to move due to some breakdown or mechanical defect. … In our opinion, the word “use” has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck.

…

33. …The words “arising out of” were not construed to mean “arising under” as in Union of India v. E.B. Aaby's Rederi A/S [1975] A.C. 797 : [1974] 2 All ER 874] which decision was held inapplicable