Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Suseelan, S/o Sukumaran - Respondent
M.A.C.A No.2221 of 2012 and C.O.No.40 of 2014
Decided on : 18-12-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 163A- Motor Accidents Claims- seeking enhancement of compensation- serious injuries- Occurrence is not as a result of use of a motor vehicle - Policy to the vehicle during the period of accident was admitted. But quantum of compensation under various heads was opposed what would be the nature of accident to treat the same as one arising out of the use of the motor vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
While analysing an accident within ambit of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act with a view to find whether the same is arising out of the use of motor vehicle, in fact, such an accident is not expressly defined in the Act. Some debate in the context of the facts and circumstances encompassed in a particular case, is decisive in this regard. To put it otherwise, the nexus between accidental injuries and the use of vehicle is the plank on which occurrence to be reckoned to include the same under the category of an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. While having a liberal and prudent approach, the cardinal principle to be borne in mind while answering the query as to whether a particular accident is one resulted while using a motor vehicle, a very pertinent aspect is, impossibility or improbability of the victims'/injureds' presence at the place of occurrence without junction of the vehicle. To be more vivid, when the nexus between the vehicle and the occurrence which resulted in causing the injuries to the petitioner is evaluated, one could see that the accident would not have happened if the vehicle was not used to reach the place of occurrence or the occurrence, either expressly or impliedly, is the proximate outcome of the use of the motor vehicle. Here, the petitioner travelled from Puthur to Coimbatore and during this course, he was attacked by some unknown persons. If he would not have travelled in the vehicle and not reached the place of occurrence, the accident could not have happened. In such a case, it is not safe to say that the occurrence is an independent one eschewing any nexus arising out of the use of motor vehicle. To the contrary, it has to be held that use of the motor vehicle ultimately led to the accident. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the occurrence narrated by the petitioner is one arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Contra argument urged by the learned counsel for the insurer cannot be countenanced. Thus the said contention stands rejected.
Result: Allowed in part
JUDGMENT :
M.A.C.A.No.2221 of 2012 is an appeal at the instance of the 3rd respondent insurance company in O.P(MV).No.3623 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur challenging award dated 24.05.2012. The original claimant, who is the 1st respondent in this appeal, filed Cross Objection No.40 of 2014, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. I would like to refer the parties in this appeal as `petitioner' and `insurer'.
3. Summary of the petition averments, shown off unnecessary details, for determination of this case is as follows:
4. The petitioner approached the Tribunal and filed petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that he sustained serious injuries in an occurrence arising out of the use of an Ambassador car bearing Reg.No.KL-8/P 3211. According to the petitioner, while he was travelling in the above car from Puthur to Coimbatore and when the car reached near Yakkara bridge at Palakkad, a Maruti Esteem Car overtook the Ambassador car and obstructed the car. Thereafter, the petitioner and his friends were attacked by using weapons including a chopper and gun. The petitioner underwent treatment and accordingly he canvassed compensation to the tune of Rs.7,13,350/-.
5. The 3rd respondent, who is the insurer, filed written statement and zealously opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent raised a contention that this petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be sustained as the occurrence is not as a result of use of a motor vehicle. At the same time, policy to the vehicle during the period of accident was admitted. But quantum of compensation under various heads was opposed.
6. 1st respondent filed written statement opposing the contentions of the petitioner, mainly disputing the quantum.
7. The Tribunal went on trial. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the petitioner. Ext.B1 marked on the side of the 3rd respondent.
8. After appraising the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable. Thus award for Rs.4,34,550/-was passed along with 8% interest per annum.
9. While assailing the award of the Tribunal on the finding that the occurrence alleged by the petitioner is one arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the insurer that though the special provision under Section 163A envisages grant of compensation on structured formula basis in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, when persons travelling in a car, if attacked by some rivalries, the same cannot be treated as an occurrence arising out of the use of motor vehicles. In this connection, the learned counsel for the insurance company placed decision reported in [2004 (2) KLT 395], Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Para.40 of the above judgment has been highlighted in this regard.
10. However, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the term `arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' to be understood in a liberal magnitude. According to him, if it is established by the claimant that the disablement was caused due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, then the claimant would be entitled to for payment of compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The learned counsel placed decision reported in [2000 (2) KLT 526(SC)], Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in support of this contention. On reading this decision, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the case of one Dasarath Singh, driver of an autorickshaw, owned by one Lalit Singh. The said autorickshaw was hired by some unknown passengers and thereafter they attempted to steal the same. When such attempt was obstructed, the unknown persons murdered the autorickshaw driver. The legal-heirs of Dasarath Singh when moved an application under Sec
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
