IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the connection between an accident and the use of a vehicle need not be direct, allowing for broader interpretations in favor of claimants.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners in OP(MV).51/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam are the appellants. They are the widow and minor child of late Krishnakumar who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.3.2007. The OP was filed underSection 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, 'the M.V.Act'). (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.)

2. According to the petitioners, on 26.3.2007 at about 7.15 p.m there was a quarrel at the courtyard of the house of one Balakrishnan Nair. Balakrishnan Nair pushed the deceased to the road. At that time a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-01-G6753 driven by the 2^nd respondent came through the road and the deceased happened to hit on the rear footboard portion of the bus. Accordingly, Krishnakumar sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 27.3.2007. The 1^st respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the bus. The 4^th respondent is the mother of the deceased. According to the petitioners, since the deceased Krishnakumar died due to the use of the offending stage carriage, they are entitled to get compensation from respondents 1 to 3 under Section 163A of the M.V. Act.

3. The 3^rd respondent/insurer who alone contested the case contended that there was no accident involving the stage carriage, that police have not filed any charge-sheet against the 2^nd respondent and that the charge-sheet was filed against Balakrishnan Nair for the offence under Section 304 IPC. It is further alleged in the written statement that in connection with the dispute between the deceased Krishnakumar and his brother-in-law, his brother-in-law physically lifted the deceased and threw him to the road and at that time, head of the deceased happened to hit on the tarred road and that is how he died.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that Krishnakumar died not because of the injuries sustained in the accident arising out of the use of the bus. Aggrieved by the above finding of the Tribunal the petitioners preferred this appeal.

5. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following.

Whether the deceased Krishnakumar died due to the use of the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-01/G 6753 ?

6. Heard Sri.Saju J.Panicker, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned Standing Counsel.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Krishnakumar died because of the head injury sustained as his head hit against the rear footboard portion of the stage carriage and as such, the death occurred due to the use of the motor vehicle and as such the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal.

8. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon some decisions. The beneficial object of Section 92A of the M.V.Act, was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Ors. v. Vatschala Uttam More , AIR 1991 SC 1769 . In paragraph 35 the Apex Court held that :

“This would show that as compared to the expression “caused by”, the expression “arising out of “ has a wider connotation. The expression “caused by” was used in Sections 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In Section 92- A, Parliament, however, chose to use the expression “arising out of” which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 92-A, the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and proximate and it can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection n