Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT AIZAWL BENCH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Lalhmunmawii and Others - Appellants
Versus
Samuel Ramdinmawia and Another - Respondents
MAC App. No. 4 of 2019
Decided On : 25-06-2019
Motor Vehicles Act, 1908 –Sections 163A, 2(18), 92A –Accident issue –The learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the stage of the claimants evidence, the learned Tribunal suddenly dismissed MACT Case vide the impugned judgment by holding that the deceased had died due to electrocution and not due to any motor accident – The appellants counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appellants claim petition on a wrong understanding of the facts and the law, inasmuch as, though the death of the deceased has been caused by electrocution, the same is connected with the use of the motor vehicle, as the electric live wire, which was hanging across the road, had become stuck on top of the truck –Held, In the present case, it is quite clear that the truck got entangled with the low hanging live electric wire, while it was under movement –The facts stated above show that if the driver of the truck had been more vigilant and had noticed the low hanging electric wire earlier, the wire may not have got stuck on top of the truck and he may have avoided the truck coming into contact with electric wire –As this court finds that there was a connection between the death of the deceased and the live wire coming into contact with the moving truck, the learned Tribunal erred in holding that compensation claim was not maintainable under the M.V. Act – This court accordingly finds that there was a causal relationship between the use of the truck and the electrocution which was direct and proximate –This court reiterates its finding that the death of the deceased occurred due to an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle –This court, thus, finds that the claim petition is maintainable –Accordingly, the present case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the case on merit –Order accordingly
ORDER :
Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. No one appears for the respondent No. 1.
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal of her claim petition i.e., MACT No. 14/2018 by the MACT, Aizawl, vide judgment and award dated 27.11.2018 has filed the present appeal.
2. The facts of the case is that the appellant's son, David Lalneihtluanga, was a Handleman in a Truck bearing registration number MZ-01-K-4096, owned by one Samuel Ramdinmawia and driven by Emmanuel Remruotsang. While they were proceeding towards Smart Brick, Lailapur, at around 6:30 a.m. on 18.9.2015, the top of the Truck came into contact with an electric wire, which was hanging very low across the road. The truck stopped and the appellant's son, David Lalneihtluanga, thereafter got up to the top of the Truck and tried to remove the wire from the truck. In the process David Lalneihtluanga got electrocuted, as the wire that he tried to remove was a live electric wire. David Lalneihtluanga was thereafter taken to Dholai PHC, wherein the Doctor declared him as brought dead. The appellant thereafter filed a claim petition under section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the stage of the claimant's evidence, the learned Tribunal suddenly dismissed MACT Case No. 14/2018, vide the impugned judgment and award dated 27.11.2018, by holding that the deceased had died due to electrocution and not due to any motor accident. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the claim petition under the MV Act, 1988 was not maintainable and observed the appellant should have filed a claim under the Workmen Compensation Act.
4. The appellants counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appellants claim petition on a wrong understanding of the facts and the law, inasmuch as, though the death of the deceased has been caused by electrocution, the same is connected with the use of the motor vehicle, as the electric live wire, which was hanging across the road, had become stuck on top of the truck. He submits that the accident is connected with the use of the motor vehicle and accordingly, the learned Tribunal could not have dismissed the appellants claim for compensation, made under section 163A of the MV Act, 1988.
5. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is no infirmity with the decision of the learned Tribunal, inasmuch as, the deceased died due to electrocution and not due to any motor vehicle accident. He accordingly prays for upholding the impugned judgment and award dated 27.11.2018.
6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. There is no dispute with the facts of the case, which is to the effect that while the truck was travelling along the road towards Smart Brick, Lailapur, it came into contact with a low hanging live electric wire, which got stuck on top of the truck. The truck thereafter stopped and the deceased got up on top of the truck to remove the electric wire. In the process, the deceased got electrocuted and he succumbed to his injury.
8. In the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.), (1991) 3 SCC 530, the question that was to be decided by the Apex Court involved the interpretation of the expression “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” contained in section 92A of tire Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which corresponds to the present section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states as follows:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
