Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent no.1 was employed as a salesman in a gift centre in Ghatkopar, Mumbai. On 15 September 2002, while walking on a footpath near Smruti Building on Mehta Road, he was struck by iron bars that were being unloaded from a motor lorry bearing registration number MCY-3239. He sustained a head injury, including a depressed fracture of the left frontal bone with intracerebral hemorrhage, and later developed impaired vision resulting in permanent partial disability. He incurred medical expenses and lost salary for about two to three months. The lorry was owned by respondent no.2 and insured by the appellant insurance company. The claimant filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000. The Tribunal by award dated 15 February 2010 granted Rs.2,16,398 inclusive of no fault liability with interest at 6% per annum from 28 October 2008 till realisation. The insurance company challenged this award in First Appeal No.843 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court. The sole legal issue was whether the injuries arose out of the 'use of motor vehicle' within the meaning of Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant insurer argued that because the lorry was stationary and the claimant was hit while on a footpath, the injury could not be said to arise out of the use of the vehicle. It relied on Ananda Dattatraya Patankar v. Kishore Narayan Patil and Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan. The respondent claimant supported the award, contending that 'use of motor vehicle' must be interpreted widely and includes unloading from a stationary vehicle, relying on Kalim Khan v. Fimidabee and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yadu Sambhaji More. The High Court examined the precedents. In Yadu Sambhaji More, the Supreme Court held that explosion of a petrol tanker four and a half hours after an accident arose out of use of motor vehicle. In Kalim Khan, the Supreme Court held that a stationary tractor with a mounted blasting machine used for digging a well was still 'use of vehicle' even though stationary. The court distinguished Minu B. Mehta, which involved a mechanical defect plea, and Ananda Patankar, which concerned an insurance policy dispute. Applying the wide interpretation, the court held that the injury caused while unloading iron bars from the lorry arose out of the use of the motor vehicle, even though the lorry was stationary. It found no infirmity in the Tribunal's award and dismissed the appeal with no costs. The court directed that the deposited amount of Rs.25,000 along with interest be transferred to the Tribunal for payment to the claimant.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Accident Arising Out of Use of Motor Vehicle - Unloading of Iron Bars from Stationary Lorry - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 165(1) - The claimant, a pedestrian, was injured when iron bars were being unloaded from a stationary lorry; the insurer contended the injury did not arise out of the use of the vehicle - The court relied on Supreme Court decisions in Kalim Khan and Yadu Sambhaji More to hold that 'use of the vehicle' can include stationary vehicles and unloading operations, and therefore the accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle - Held that the Tribunal's award granting compensation was correct and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 6-14). B) Motor Vehicles - Precedents Distinguished - Minu B. Mehta and Ananda Patankar - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 165(1) - The insurer cited Minu B. Mehta and Ananda Patankar; the court found both distinguishable on their own facts, as they concerned mechanical defect and insurance policy dispute respectively, not the scope of 'use of vehicle' in unloading - Held that these decisions did not support the insurer's contention (Paras 15-16). C) Motor Vehicles - Dismissal of Appeal - Award Confirmed - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's award of Rs.2,16,398 with interest, and directed the deposited Rs.25,000 to be transferred to the Tribunal - Held that appeal was without merit and dismissed with no order as to costs (Para 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether injuries sustained by a pedestrian hit by iron bars being unloaded from a stationary motor lorry arise out of the 'use of motor vehicle' within the meaning of Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The award of the Tribunal was confirmed, and the amount of Rs.25,000 deposited by the appellant before the High Court, along with interest if any, was directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for payment to the claimant.
Law Points
- Accident arising out of use of motor vehicle includes unloading of goods from a stationary vehicle
- expression 'use of vehicle' under Section 165(1) of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 has wide import and is not confined to vehicle in motion
- stationary vehicle can be said to be in use under certain circumstances
- reliance on Supreme Court decisions in Kalim Khan and Yadu Sambhaji More
