Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, awarding compensation of Rs. 8,26,000 with interest to the dependents of a welder who died in a blast while welding a tanker at a repair garage. The insurance company challenged the liability, arguing that the vehicle was not in 'use' at the time of the incident and that the garage was not a 'public place' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Background and Facts: Shafiq Atikurrahaman, a welder at Om Sai Servicing Garage, Chembur, died on 19 May 2015 due to a sudden blast while welding a motor tanker that had come for repair. An FIR was filed against the garage owner. The dependents filed a motor accident claim before the Tribunal, which awarded compensation jointly against the vehicle owner and the insurance company. The vehicle owner did not appear before the Tribunal. The insurance company, being aggrieved, filed the present appeal.
Legal Issues: The court framed three issues: (i) whether a vehicle being repaired at a garage constitutes 'use' under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act; (ii) whether a private garage is a 'public place' under Section 2(34); and (iii) whether the deceased was negligent, barring the claim under Section 166.
Arguments: The insurer contended that a stationary vehicle under repair is not 'use', relying on Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Surender Kumar Arora v. Manoj Bisla. It also asserted that the garage was not a public place, and the deceased was negligent. The claimants argued that repair is a form of 'use', relying on Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More and other precedents, and that a garage is a public place accessible to the public.
Court's Analysis: The court examined Section 147 and the object of the Act, which mandates third‑party insurance. It held that 'use' cannot be given a restrictive meaning limited to movement; passive use, such as parking or repairs, is included. It illustrated that a vehicle taking a break at a food mall or getting a puncture repaired is still in use. Repairs are integral to a vehicle's movement. The court also referred to Section 190, which imposes a duty to repair defects, and noted that the Act regulates stationary vehicles under Sections 126, 122, and 132, indicating legislative intent to treat stationary vehicles as 'use'. The court supported its reasoning with the Goa Bench decision in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Priyanka K. Mayekar, which involved a similar factual scenario. The judgment text is incomplete, and the court did not render a final conclusion on all issues; however, its analysis strongly favoured the claimants' position on the scope of 'use'.
Decision: The text ends abruptly, and the final order is not available in the provided excerpt. Hence, the ultimate disposal of the appeal is not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - 'Use' of Motor Vehicle - Repair at Garage - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 147, 190 - The phrase 'use of the motor vehicle' includes passive use such as repairs, and when a vehicle is taken to a garage for repair, it amounts to use; hence, insurance liability applies - The court rejected the insurer's narrow interpretation, holding that repair is integral to the vehicle's movement and the obligation under Section 190 to remove defects supports this interpretation; thus, insurance company cannot avoid liability on ground that vehicle was stationary for repairs (Paras 9-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a vehicle can be said to be in 'use' when it is stationed at a garage for the purpose of repairing?; Whether a garage would fall within the definition of 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?; Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver/owner of the vehicle and/or the owner of the garage were responsible and not the deceased?
Law Points
- The expression 'use of motor vehicle' under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 cannot be restricted to moving vehicles
- it includes passive use such as repairs
- a vehicle taken to a garage for repair is in 'use'
- the Act contemplates stationary vehicles under Sections 126
- 122
- 132
- narrow interpretation would defeat purpose of compensatory provisions.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 211
First Appeal No. 246 of 2021 with Interim Application No. 1407 of 2021 and Interim Application No. 211 of 2023
Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi, Mr. Pradyumna Thakurdesai for the appellants; Ms. Varsha Chavan for the respondents
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Atikurrahaman Lais Mohammad, Mrs. Aasama Atikurrahaman, Mohd. Ashraf F. Kapadia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award of compensation in motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Remedy Sought
Insurance company seeking to set aside or modify the Tribunal's award holding them jointly liable to pay compensation
Filing Reason
Insurance company aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 3 August 2020 awarding Rs. 8,26,000 with interest against them
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, by order dated 3 August 2020, awarded Rs. 8,26,000 with interest to the dependents of the deceased, against the vehicle owner and the insurance company
Issues
Whether a vehicle can be said to be in 'use' when it is stationed at a garage for the purpose of repairing?
Whether a garage would fall within the definition of 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver/owner of the vehicle and/or the owner of the garage were responsible and not the deceased?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (Insurance Company): Vehicle was not in 'use' since it was stationery for repairs; a private garage is not a 'public place' under Section 2(34); negligence of the deceased and garage owner bars liability; claim under Section 166 not maintainable due to deceased's own negligence; reliance on Minu B. Mehta & Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. and Surender Kumar Arora & Anr v. Manoj Bisla & Ors.
Respondent (Claimants): Garage is a public place; vehicle under repair amounts to 'use'; repair is integral to vehicle movement; owner is liable for acts done on his behalf; insurance company liable under Section 146; reliance on Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. vs. Vatschala Uttam More, Pandurang Chimaji Agale & Anr. vs. New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., and Guru Govekar V. Filomena f. Lobo & Ors.
Judgment Excerpts
The phrase 'use of the motor vehicle' cannot be given a restrictive meaning to mean an accident occurring only when the vehicle is moving. The phrase 'use of the motor vehicle' would not only include active use of movement but also passive use of the motor vehicle for the purposes of its movement.
Repairs of a motor vehicle is a part and parcel and integral aspects of its movement from one place to another. Therefore, when a vehicle is taken to a workshop or garage for being repaired, in my view, it would amount to use of the motor vehicle.
If the motor vehicle parked at a food mall is moving from place 'A' to place 'B' or being parked at the workshop for repairs, during the course of its journey from place 'A' to place 'B', it can be said to be in use, merely because the vehicle is taken to a garage and is at garage for repairing, it cannot be said that it is not put to use.
Section 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for provisions relating to using vehicle in unsafe condition... Therefore, any act by the owner of the vehicle or a driver to take the vehicle to a garage for removing the defect would be in discharge of his obligation cast under Section 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, such an act cannot be construed to mean that the vehicle was not in use for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Procedural History
On 19 May 2015, a blast occurred while the deceased was welding a motor tanker at a garage, resulting in his death. An FIR was filed against the garage owner by a relative of the deceased. The dependents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. By order dated 3 August 2020, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,26,000 with interest jointly against the vehicle owner and the insurance company. The insurance company, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., filed the present First Appeal No. 246 of 2021 challenging the award. The appeal was admitted and taken up for final hearing by consent. The vehicle owner's appeal stood dismissed earlier by order dated 6 September 2023. The court heard counsel for both sides and raised three legal issues, and was in the process of analysing them when the judgment text became incomplete.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 2(34), 126, 122, 132, 147, 166, 190
