Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
Baldev Kaur
Versus
Nazar Singh
First Appeal from the Order No. 505 of 1993,
Decided On : JULY 8, 1996
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 166 - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - CLAIM PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - DEATH DUE TO ELECTROcution - CONNECTION WITH USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
Onkar Singh died due to electrocution when a combine harvester struck an electric wire while being pulled out of a field by five tractors. The claimants, Onkar Singh's family members, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation from the combine harvester's owner, driver, and the Punjab State Electricity Board.
Finding of the Court:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the death was not caused by a motor vehicle accident but by electrocution and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The claimants appealed the decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the death was caused by electrocution due to a motor vehicle striking an electric wire? 2. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain such a claim petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has a wider connotation than "caused by." It implies that the accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle, but the connection need not be direct and immediate. 2. In the present case, the claimants had made clear averments that the death of Onkar Singh was directly connected to the rash and negligent driving of the combine harvester, which struck the electric wire, resulting in electrocution. Therefore, the claim petition was maintainable under Section 166 of the Act. 3. The Tribunal erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition solely because the death was caused by electrocution rather than a direct motor vehicle accident.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case back for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to frame issues arising from the pleadings of the parties, afford opportunities for evidence, and dispose of the case according to law.
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. Baldev Kaur widow, Bhajanjit Kaur minor daughter, Harkirat Singh minor son and Ind Kaur mother of Onkar Singh deceased filed Claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rupees twenty lacs on account of death of Onkar Singh son of Shri Harnek Singh, in Motor Vehicular accident.
2. The case of appellant as pleaded in their claim petition is that on 22-10-1989, Bharat Harvestor Combine belonging to respondents No. 2 to 5 was engaged for harvesting paddy crop in the fields of Jugraj son of Shri Ujjal Singh. The same got stuck in the field and in order to pull it out, five tractors were engaged. One of those tractors was of Harnek Singh on which Onkar Singh deceased was sitting. The other tractors belonged to Kaur Singh, Jugraj Singh, Jana Singh, Harminder Singh and Harwinder Singh. The driver of combine was Nazar Singh, respondent No. 1. While the tractor were pulling out Combine, the driver of the same rashly and negligently drove it and struck against an electric wire, as a result of which electric current passed in the Harvestor Combine and thereafter in all the tractors. As a result of the impact of Harvestor Combine with the naked electric live wire, Onkar Singh fell down and was electrocuted. The respondent-Punjab State electricity Board was also negligent as the electric wire was naked and was hanging very low. The vertical distance of the cable was only 10 feet, whereas according to Indian Electricity Rules, it should be 15 feet and, thus, it was in clear violation of the Rules. The accident has been caused due to the negligence of the respondents as a result of which Onkar Singh died. It was also pleaded that it was a case of composite negligence of Onkar Singh and the respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimants.
3. Dr. B.L. Bhardwaj conducted Post-Mortem examination on the dead body of deceased in Civil Hospital Sangrur. The Harvestor combine was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Sangrur. The claimants have suffered great mental shock, pain and agony and as such are entitled to receive compensation.
4. The claim was resisted by the respondents No. 1 to 5 who stated that the liability, if any, is of the Insurance Company with which the Harvestor Combine was insured. It is further averred that in case there is any negligence, it was due to the action of the Punjab State Electricity Board.
5. The Punjab State Electricity Board also refuted the averments of the claimants. It pleaded that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation and that it was not in any way negligent or responsible for the accident.
6. The Insurance Company also opposed the claim of the claimants. It is averred that the Combine owned by Udham Singh, Desa Singh, Megh Singh and Rai Singh was insured with the Nabha Branch. It is also averred that if it is proved that the accident was caused by respondent No. 1 Nazar Singh while driving the Combine, its liability will arise only if Nazar Singh was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
7. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether Onkar Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of Harvestor Combine No. PCI-4344 on 23.10.1989 ? OPP
2. Whether the claim petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. drivers, owners and the Insurance Company of the five tractors engaged in pulling the Harvestor Combine ? OPR
3. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence on the day of accident ? OPR
4. Whether the claimants have no cause of action against respondents No. 1 to 8 ? OPR.
5. To what amount and from whom the claimants are entitled to claim compensation ? OPP.
6. Relief.
8. The parties led evidence on the above issues. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence and hearing arguments of both sides, decided issues No. 1, 4 and 5 against the clai
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
