1990 Supreme(Bom) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C. Mookerjee, C.J. M.L. Dudhat, J.
Shivaji Dayanu Patil another.... Appellants.
Versus
Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.) mother of the deceased.... Respondent.
Letters patent Appeal No. 65 of 1990, in First Appeal No. 54 of 1990, decided on 16-8-1990.
Advocates appeared :
K.S.V. Murthy, for the appellants.
George Curion with A.P. Vaze and Mrs. Jayshree Patel, for respondent.

Headnote:MOTOR VEIDCLES ACT, 1939

       Section 2 (18)-Motor Vehicle-Collision of petrol tanker with truck-Tanker went out off road and overturned-Leakage of petrol-Explosion after more than four hour-Death of one of persons assembled-Whether tanker ceased to be motor vehicle within meaning of Section 2 (18) at time of accident.

       Held-It cannot be said that tanker which was motor vehicle at time of collision had ceased to he motor vehicle after said collision and could not be regarded as motor vehicle under Section 2 (18) at time when explosion and fire took place in tanker subsequently.

       

       Section 92-A-Collision of petrol tanker with motor lorry on highway Explosion in tanker-Tanker burnt-Persons gathering around tanker dying up, spot in consequence of explosion and fire-Whether claimants of Such deceased persons bad right to receive compensation under Section 92-A as death was not proximate or direct result of accident arising from use of Motor Vehicle.

       Held-Right to receive compensation under Section 92-A of the Act is not confined only to those cases where death or permanent disablement is proximate or direct result of accident arising from use of motor vehicle. Right to compensation also extends to cases where death or disablement may not be proximate or immediate but nonetheless arising from use of Motor Vehicle, Where, however, death or disablement of a victim is totally unconnected with or unrelated to the use of a Motor Vehicle, Section 92-A will not be attracted.

       In the instant case the collision between the tanker and the other vehicle which occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately remitted in explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events and death of the victims arose from use of the Motor Vehicle. Hence claimants of deceased persons had right to receive compensation under Section 92-A of the Act.

       Section 92-A-Collusion of petrol tanker with truck-Tanker went not off road and overturned-Leakage of petrol-Explosion and fire after more than four hours-Death of one of persons assembled-Claim for damages-Whether death was due to accident arising not of use of vehicle i.e. petrol tanker-Held-Word use in context of more vehicles includes period when vehicle is not moving and is stationery, being parked on road when it is not in position to move doe to some break down or mechanical defect-Hence explosion resulting in death of deceased was due to accident arising not of motor vehicle viz. petrol tanker.

       

       Section 92-A-Expression Use of Motor Vehicle-Connotation.

       The words "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 a position to move .due to some breakdown or mechanical defect. The expression "use of a motor vehicle" in Section 92-A covers accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary.

       The tanker in question while proceedings along National Highway No. (4 i. e., while in use) after colliding with a motor lorry was lying on the side and that it cannot be claimed that after the collision the use of the tanker had ceased only because it was disabled. 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 break-down to 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.

       MOTER VEHICLES ACT, 1939.

       Section 91-A-Object of

       Object of inserting section 92-A in the statute was to enlarge the right to receive compensation for death or permanent disablement in consequence of a motor accident. Therefore, right to receive compensation under section 92-A is not confined only to cases where death or permanent disablement is the proximate or direct result of an accident arising from use of a moter vehicle. Right to compensation under section 92-A also extends to cases where death or such disablement may not be the proximate or immediate, but the nonetheless arissing from use of a motor vehicle. Undoubtedly when the death or disablement of a victim is totally unconnected with or unrelated with or unrelated to the user of a motor vehicle section 92-A is not attracted.

       Therefore, we may proceed to consider whether the collussion between the tanker and the motere-lorry and the subsequent explosion and fire resulting in the death of the respondents son and others and injury to others were two independent and unconnected incidents. Merely because there was interval of about 4/41/2 hours between the said collision and the explosion and fire in the tank, one cannot be necessarily infer that there was no causal relation between the carrier and the later incident of explosion and fire. We would presently indicate that the earlier collision between two vehicles if not the cause was atlest the main contributory factor for the subsequent explosion and fire in the tanker in question. The tanker in question was carrying octroi which was highly combustible and volatile material. After the headlong collision with the other motor vehicle, the tanker had fallen on one of its rides on slopping grounds resulting in escape of highly inferable petrol. There were grave risk of explosion and fire from the petrol coming out of the tanker. The tanker was allowed to remain in such dangerous condition for hours without any effort being made to prevent such great hazard of fire and explosion from petrol escaping from the tanker. The negligance or even misconduct on the part of those who had been collecting petrol from the tanker were not relevant for the reasons already indicated earlier. Therefore, We conclude that between the tanker and another vehicle which occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events. Therefore the appellants were liable to pay under section 92-A of the Act compensation to the defendents of the victim of the said accident.

       It is true that under Rule 306-A of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, a Claims Tribunal shall obtain whether supplementary information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice to appear or not on the appointed date. Rule 306-B also allows the Tribunal to award claim or compensation on the basis of among others Panchanama and the first information report. Even it in adjudicating a dispute under section 92-A the Tribunal is not fetterred by strict rules of the Evidence Act and the papers mentioned in the aforesaid two rules are relevant. In the instant case the papers and documents including the F. I. R. and the Panchanama produced before the Tribunal did not establish that the fire was ignited by someone carelessly throwing a match stick. Been if the statements made to the police be treated as admissible in a proceeding under section 92-A, we find that the same contained expression of views of certain persons about probable cause of fire, but none of these persons made any categorical and positive statement about the case of the fire.

       Section 92-A-Claim far compensation-Petrol Tankar and Lorry collided - Petrol leaked out-Explosion also take place-Several persons gathered at site and began to collect petrol- In meanwhile due to explosion subsequently some persons died-Claim for compensation by dependent of deceased-Held, claim to be allowed and can out be denied on ground that deceased was pilfering petrol.

       Referred to sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 92-A which make totally irrelevant the questions of wrongful act, neglect or default either of the owner of the vehicle or of the victims of an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle. The learned Single Judge has also rightly pointed out that there was also no evidence whatsoever that the person or persons in respect of whose deaths compensation had been claimed under Section 92-A were themselves actually committing theft or pilferage of petrol at the time of their deaths. These victims could have been only curious by standers at the site of the accident. Undisputedly the death of respondents son resulted from the tankers petrol catching fire and exploding.

       Section 92-A- Claim for compensation-Basis for liability of owner of vehicle - Held, for bolding owner of vehicle liable deceased must hare died as a result of accident arising out of use of such vehicle while either in motion or in statutory position.

       Liability of the owner of a vehicle under Section 92-A to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disablement is based on principle of no fault. The claimant is not required to plead and establish wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle. Any wrongful act, neglect or default of the victim is also totally irrelevant (vide sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Section 92-A of the Act). Therefore the scope of an enquiry under Section 92-A is a limited one and the same is restricted to determination of following points:

       (i) Whether death or permanent disablement of person in respect of whom compensation has been claimed resulted from an accident:

       (ii) whether the said accident arose out of use of a motor vehicle.