The wide interpretation of 'use of motor vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act and the influence of precedents on determining the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

Bhat J.

The appellants in M.F.A, 403/86, who were petitioners before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, challenge the quantum of compensation granted to them, by seeking enhancement, whereas the appellant in M.F.A. 381/87, the Insurance Company, challenges the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim petition filed by the appellants in M.F.A. 403/86.

2. The appellants in M.F.A. 403/86 are the widow and children of Velayudhan Nadar. Who died as a result of severe burns sustained by him in an accident. The deceased was an agriculturist and an independent contractor. He owned in front of his house, double storeyed building. All the ten rooms in the building were rented out and one of the tenants was running a kerosene oil depot. On 17-12-1979, a tanker lorry belonging to the 1st respondent in M.F.A. 403/86 brought kerosene to the above depot by about 8 P.M. It is the case of the appellants that deceased Velayudhan Nadar was used to be employed for transferring the kerosene from the tanker lorry to the barrels kept in Hit-depot along with the regular employees in the tanker lorry, namely respondents 2,4 and 5 in M.F.A- 403/86. It is said that the skilled portion of the work, namely opening the tanker, connecting the barrels etc., was being done always by the regular employees and the deceased joined them to complete the remaining work. On 17-12-1979, while the deceased was thus engaged infilling the empty barrels with kerosene brought, in the tanker lorry, due to no fault of his, a spark appeared from under the tanker and immediately the kerosene caught fire. As a result, the oil tanker, the oil depot, the entire building and about 20 coconut trees standing in the property

belonging to the deceased, gutted in fire. The deceased, in spite of his desperate attempt, could not save himself from the fire. He sustained severe burn injuries and was hospitalised in the Government Taluk Hospital, Neyyattinkara and then transferred to Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He succumbed to the injuries at 10p.m. on 19-12-1979.

3. It is the case of the appellants in M. F.A. 403/86 that the accident happened due to the negligence of the owner of the oil tanker and his employees. They claimed Rs. 1,51.000/- as compensation for loss of property and loss on account of the death of Velayudhan Nadar. Respondents 1 and 3 in M.F.A. 403/86 contended be Tore the' Tribunal that the petition was not maintainable as the accident was not a motor - vehicle accident and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It was further contended by the 1st respondent that deceased Velayudhan Nadar was never engaged by the first respondent for decanting kerosene from the oil tanker 10 the barrels, that the deceased sustained the injury due to gross negligence on his part and that the amount claimed was exorbitant.

4. The Tribunal, by a preliminary order dated 17-12-1985, found that the deceased sustained the injuries as a consequence of an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and therefore the petition for compensation under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable before the Tribunal. After considering the entire evidence in the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence of the owner and driver of the tanker lorry and an award was passed in favour of the claimants to the extent of Rs.67,350/-.

5. The contention taken by the Insurance Company in M.F.A. 381/87 is against the finding of the Tribunal on the question of jurisdiction. It contends that since the vehicle was stationary at the time of accident. It cannot be said that the accident occurred-by the use of the vehicle and therefore it is not liable to pay any amount. According to the appellant, the accident can be treated only as one arising out of and in the course of employment and not as a result of any motor vehicle accident for which the Insurance Company could be made liable. The claimants who are respon