Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Saraswathamma And Ors. on 22 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: ILR2008KAR1553, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1923 (KAR.) = 2008 (3) AIR KAR R 341, 2008 (3) AIR KANT HCR 341, 2008 A I H C 2566, (2009) 3 ACC 526, (2009) 1 ACJ 696
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
JUDGMENT Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
1. The Insurance Company in this appeal is challenging the judgment and award dated 12.6.2006 passed in MVC No. 2758/ 2005 by the IX Addl. Judge, Member, MACT-7, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH-7), Metropolitan Area, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, while, the deceased was loading the watermelon fruits on the lorry, slipped and fell down from the lorry on a large stone, sustained grievous injury to the spinal cord and succumbed to the injuries on 4.2.2005 while under treatment. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed claim petition praying for grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,72,200/- with 6% interest thereon under various heads. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the findings relating to negligence and the quantum of compensation.
3. Sri. P.B. Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, argued that the lorry was in stationary condition and was not in use and thus, the accident has not arisen out of the driving of the motor vehicle. According to him, as the claimant himself fell down from the lorry while loading the watermelon, there cannot be any negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry causing death of the deceased and therefore the owner of the lorry consequently the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
4. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the owner of the vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay the compensation in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle as indicated in Schedule-II. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was stationary at the time of incident. It is also not in dispute that the claimant while loading the watermelon on the lorry, fell down from the lorry on a stone and sustained grievous injuries, consequent upon which, he died.
5. The expression "accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle" has received a pragmatic interpretation from the Apex Court. In the decision reported in Shtvajidayanu Path and Anr. v. Smt. Vatschala utammore , their Lordships held that the expression "use of motor vehicle" covers accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary.
As compared to the expression "caused by", the expression "arising out of has a wider connotation. In Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Parliament has chosen to use expression' 'arising out of which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 163-A, the casual 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 can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct or immediate. This construction of expression "arising out of the use of motor vehicle" in Section 163-A of the Act, enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment. It is held in the aforecited judgment that the word 'use' has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and that the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of break-down or mechanical defect or accident or otherwise. The expression employed by the Legislature is "accident rising out of the use of a motor vehicle" and not the "accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle." Evidently, the Legislature wanted to enlarge the scope of the word 'use' and not to restrict it for denying compensation in deserving cases. The test should be whether the accident was reasonably proximate to the use of a motor vehicle, whether or not the motor vehicle was in motion then. There cannot be any dispute that the provisions for dealing with the compensation cases are intended for a sublime social objective. Therefore, I am not inclined to adopt a restrictive interpretation for the word 'use' in the present context.
6. This Court while dealing with similar situation in the case of Sulochana and Ors. v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has observed thus:
It is evident from the above pronouncements that the expression "arising out of the use of the motor vehicle" has been given the widest interpretation by the Apex Court as also other Courts in the country having regard to the purpose underlying the motor vehicle legislation. If a tanker turned turtle explodes hours after the accident causing death of those who had gathered there to collect petrol that was leaking from the tanker, if a passenger who after the motor vehicle meets with an accident starts rescue operation to help the other trapped passenger and dies in the course of the same, if the pedestrian crushed by a vehicle on account of the bursting of the tyre or an autorickshaw driver killed by the passengers for stealing the autorickshaw can be said to be accidents arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, it is difficult to see how the accident in the instant case resulting in the death of the deceased while he was admittedly travelling in the bus owned by the respondent-Corporation on account of a tree falling on the vehicle can be held otherwise. It is true that but for the falling ' of the tree on the bus the deceased may not have lost his life, but the use of the vehicle on which the same fell and the death of the deceased are so closely inter-related that it is difficult to treat the death to be an act of God unrelated to such user. We have therefore no difficulty in holding that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the accident in question had not arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle.
(Emphasis supplied.)
7. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of Babu v. Ramesanand Ors. AIR 1996 Kerala 95. In the said matter, while the workmen were engaged in loading the goods vehicle on the lorry, were tying the load with the help of rope for safe transportation of the load in the vehicle. One of the workmen, in order to make the end of the rope reach the other side of the vehicle, threw it up, but accidentally, the rope which was wet in the rain, became suddenly live from the electricity transmitted through a 66 K.V. high tension wire drawn above that place. In a trice all the workmen engaged in the loading exercise were electrocuted and sustained severe burn injuries from the high voltage power passed through them. In the said matter, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, by detailed discussion held that, the incident has happened due to the use of the motor vehicle. I fully agree with the reasoning adopted in the said matter.
8. From the above, it is clear that the vehicle was in use in this matter also. The deceased was loading the watermelon on the lorry. As aforementioned, the word 'use' cannot be given restricted meaning. Thus, the incident occurred in this matter, amounts to motor accident as the incident was having reasonable proximity to the use of the motor vehicle, though the motor vehicle was stationary. Therefore, the Insurance Company is rightly held liable by the Tribunal.
8.1 At this stage, Sri. Gopalakrishna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants concedes that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 36,200/- in excess of the reasonable compensation. He fairly submitted that the Tribunal has awarded more compensation under the conventional heads. By accepting the submission of the learned Counsel for the claimants, the award passed by the Tribunal is to be reduced by Rs. 36,200/-.
9. Accordingly, the following order is made:
ORDER The claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 2,36,000/-as against Rs. 2,72,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. The claimants are entitled to compensation in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company shall indemnify the owner by paying compensation awarded.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. The balance amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within six weeks from today.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.