The judgment established the wider connotation of the term 'use' in the context of 'accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' and emphasized the need for a causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

Authored By : Harish Tandon, Subhasis Dasgupta

1. Apathy or sympathy when pitted against the statutory right cannot be a factor in determining the compensation claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is not the duty of the Court to legislate and incorporate something into the statute book which is conspicuously absent therein. It is a primary duty of the Court to interpret the legislative provisions firstly from the use of the words and expressions and given it to its normal meaning or the specific meaning in the event such word or expressions are defined therein. The canon of interpretation has expanded its horizon in bringing the external aid which is again dependant upon avowed purpose and object of the Statute. While interpreting the expression or word it is a paramount duty of the Court to bear in mind the nature of the legislation and its extended benefit. The welfare piece of legislation always receives interpretation of the words and expressions used therein to the benefit of the class of the people for which the same is enacted. The strict interpretation which frustrates the object and purpose of such beneficial or social welfare legislation should be guarded against.

2. Keeping in mind the broad prospect underlining the concept of interpretation adopted by the Court, let us examine whether the claim petition under Section 163A of the said Act deserves to be allowed or not.

3. The undisputed facts evident from the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents are that the victim driver died in the driver's cabin of the truck while coming to Kolkata in sleeping condition and his body was recovered by the Police on the next morning. The post mortem report was conducted and post mortem report revealed the cause of death to be intra cerebral hemorrhage which is ante-mortem in nature. It is the uniform stand of the parties that the deceased driver was sleeping in a driver's cabin of the truck parked in a petrol pump and was found dead on the floor of the driver's cabin.

4. The appellant, Insurance Company took the defence that the death was not caused due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle but was ante-mortem and, therefore, it does not fasten any liability on the Insurance Company to honour the insurance policy issued in respect of the said truck.

5. Such being the facts, it is nearly impossible to bring any eye witness to such incident and entire claim petition is, in fact, decided on the interpretation of the expression "accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle" appearing in Section 163A of the Act. The Tribunal though noticed the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Manorama Devi & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Reported in 2003 ACJ 278 and Rita Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2000 ACJ 801, but surreptitiously jumped to the conclusion without recording any reasons and independent findings that the death was caused due to use of motor vehicle and, therefore, the claimants/respondents are entitled to compensation to the extent to Rs. 2,73,500/- from the Insurance Company.

6. At the very outset, we must record that the findings of the Apex Court in case of Manorama Devi (Supra) as quoted in the impugned Tribunal does not sufficiently lead to an inference that the death of such nature can be brought within the periphery of accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, but we feel to consider the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court if any support to the ultimate decision of the Tribunal can be supported therefrom.

7. Both the Act i.e., Workman's Compensation Act and the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 are beneficial and welfare piece of legislation aiming at the compensation to be paid. Though the primary object can be found to be identical yet they operate in a different fields. Section 167 of the M.V. Act provides election to claim compensation either under the Workman's Compensation Act or under the Mot