Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Jogendra Chandra Kar and Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
Haradhan Saha and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 14.03.2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the broad and liberal interpretation of the term 'accident' and its relationship with the use of the motor vehicle in determining entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Ambit of the expression 'accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles' - Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Rita Devi (Smt.) and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 113; Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.)(1991) 2 SCC 530 - The court discussed the wider meaning of the expression 'accident' and 'arising out of the use of motor vehicles' as given by the English Courts and held that the use of the vehicle need not necessarily be the immediate cause of death or bodily injury suffered, and as long as there is some casual relationship between the death or bodily injury and the use of the vehicle, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The claim case arose from the death of a T.S.R. Personnel in an extremist attack while providing security cover, leading to a dispute over whether the death occurred in a vehicular accident or due to extremist firing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death, although caused by extremist firing, must be considered as an accident due to the wider interpretation of the term 'accident' and its casual relationship with the use of the motor vehicle.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, given the circumstances of the death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied a broad and liberal interpretation of the term 'accident' and its relationship with the use of the motor vehicle, as established in leading decisions such as Rita Devi (Smt.) and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.).
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous decision and remitted the matter for due adjudication by the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for a broad and liberal approach in examining claims of compensation under the Act.
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The ambit of the expression "...accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles...." as appearing in Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the precise issue arising for the courts determination in the present case. The said question arises in the following facts.
2. The claim case out of which this appeal has arisen had been instituted by the respondent who are the parents of one late Amar Chandra Kar who was a T.S.R. Personnel. On 25.5.1993 the deceased was returning from Rajchantai by a vehicle bearing Registration No. TRT 1556 (Jeep). He along with other TSR personnel were proving security cover to the staff of the Rubber Board who were carrying money withdrawn from the Bank for payment of salary. When the vehicle reached a spot near Rajchantai, extremists opened fire on the vehicle as a result of which Amar Chandra Kar along with another Rifleman and the driver of the Vehicle died on the spot. Death was on account of bullet injuries suffered. Claiming that their son had died in a vehicular accident, the claimants instituted a claim proceeding registered and numbered as TS (MAC) 101/93 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura. A total compensation of Rs. 7,00,416.00 was claimed.
3. The owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company, who were impleaded as opposite parties in the said claim petition, filed their respective written statements in the case. The stand taken by the opposite parties in the claim petition is that the death of Amar Chandra Kar did not occur in a vehicular accident; rather such death was caused by bullet injuries suffered on account of firing by the extremists. Consequently, it was contended that the claimants will not be entitled to any compensation under the Act.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues for trial in the case which may be extracted herein below:
(i) Is the claim petition maintainable in law and in its form ?
(ii) Has the death of Amar Chandra Kar occurred following any vehicular accident on 25.5.1993 at 3 PM at Pukur Netai (near Rajchantai Buzar) on Borakha Rajchantai Road arising out of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. TRT 1556 (Jeep) ?
(iii) Are the claimants entitled to any compensation, if so what is the quantum and which of the O.P. has to pay it?
(iv) To what other relief(s) are the parties entitled ?
5. The learned Tribunal by its award dated 15.3.1999 thought it proper to take the view that as the death of Amar Chandra Kar was occasioned by an attack of the extremists and the said person died on account of bullet injuries sustained, it can not be said that the deceased had died due to a accident on account of the use of a motor vehicle. On the said finding recorded, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved this appeal has been filed.
6. I have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel for appearing for the appellants, Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Shri P. Gautam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in spite of due service of notice.
7. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the respective parties may now be noticed.
Shri Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a right to receive fair compensation is vested in a claimant on account of death caused or bodily injury that may have been suffered in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. Shri Deb has urged that the entitlement to receive compensation depends on two principal factors. Firstly, death or bodily injury must be on account of an accident. Secondly, such accident must arise out of the use of a motor vehicle. According to Shri Deb, keeping in mind
