The main legal point established is the broad interpretation of 'use of motor vehicle' and the application of compensation principles in cases of accidents involving parked vehicles.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Both these appeals are filed by the same claimants in relation to an accident involving a Tanker bearing Registration No. UP 78B 7215.

3. M.A Case No. 243 of 2003 arises out of the order dated 17.4.2003 passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in relation to Compensation Case No. 57 of 2002. M.A Case No. 62 of 2009 arises out of the judgment and award dated 21.11.2008 passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from same compensation case being Compensation Case No. 57 of 2002. In both the impugned orders, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants.

4. The claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation. It is the case of the claimants that on 07.01.2002, the deceased Mahabir Bhagat was in a hotel. Next to the hotel, a petrol tanker was parked by the side of the road. Few people were pilfering petrol from the tanker and were filling the same in containers when suddenly the tanker exploded as a result of which several persons received grievous burn injuries including the deceased Mahabir Bhagat. Mahabir Bhagat was taken to the hospital where he died during the course of his treatment on 11.01.2002. The accident was caused due to use of motor vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 78B 7215. The vehicle was duly insured by the respondent-Insurance Company, thus the claimants who are the heirs of the deceased, claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. On being noticed, the Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statement/show-cause. They denied the fact that accident occurred due to use of the motor vehicle. Their claim is that it is not an accident, rather the facts stated in the FIR narrates a different story. Admittedly, the deceased died due to burn injuries which cannot be said to have been caused due to the accident. It is the specific case that the during course of pilfering of petrol from the said tanker which was parked, by the side of the road, the tanker caught fire and several persons including the deceased who was also trying to steal petrol, sustained burn injuries and later on died, thus it cannot be said that the deceased died due to use of the motor vehicle. The fact that the said truck was insured by the Insurance Company is not disputed.

6. The owner of the truck appeared and filed their written statement/show-cause to the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. They also admit that an FIR being Chanho P.S. Case No.3 of 2002 under Section 435, 407, 379 & 34 of the IPC was registered against five named persons on account of the incident which had taken place. The tanker was in a static position on the road and there was no negligence on the part of the driver, thus the entire incident cannot be said to be a Motor Accident which can attract payment of compensation. He stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent-Insurance Company on the date of the accident and there was no violation of the terms & condition of the policy and the driver also had a valid driving licence.

7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed six issues which are as under:-

“1. Whether the Compensation Case No. 57 of 2002 filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the claimants have got the valid cause of action for instituting this compensation case?

3. Whether the deceased Mahabir Bhagat died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 7.1.2002, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker No. UP 78B 7215.

4. Whether the Tanker No. UP 78B 7215 was insured with the O.P No.2, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident?

5. Whether the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation as prayed for? If so, to what extent and by whom?

6. To what other relief or relieves the claimant are entitled to? ”

8. Two witnesses were adduced by the claimant