Madhya Pradesh High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gyarsibai And Ors. on 29 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2003)ACC16, 2004ACJ386
JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.
1. This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid miscellaneous appeals, which have been filed against the separate, but common award.
2. The insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against interim award dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh in Claim Case Nos. 10, 11, 12, 9 and 8 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000, in each case, under no fault liability against the insurance company with interest.
3. The brief and common facts for the disposal of all these appeals are that on 26.5.1996 respondent/owner of the tractor-trolley and respondent/driver of the tractor were using tractor for running compressor machine on the well of Bhagirath and it has been stated in the petition as well as in the F.I.R. that they were running a compressor with the use of tractor for operating boring machine in the well of Bhagirath. In the trolley some explosive material was also kept, suddenly there was an explosion and on account of the same five persons, namely, Bhagirath, Ramchandra, Gokul, Ghanshyam and Goverdhan died on the spot. The legal representatives of the deceased have filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal along with application for grant of compensation under no fault liability. The Tribunal vide separate impugned awards dated 12.9.1997 allowed the application and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to each of the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent against which the insurance company has filed this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Submission of Mr. Mitha, learned counsel for the appellant is that Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation. The trolley was not insured with the insurance company and only the tractor was insured and that too was insured only for agricultural purposes. There was no nexus between the accident and the use of tractor for agricultural purpose as even the running of a compressor with the aid of tractor was not an agricultural activity, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for any compensation.
6. In reply the learned counsel for the claimants as also the owner of the vehicle has supported the impugned interim award passed by the Tribunal.
7. On perusal of the record, it appears that as per the pleadings and the F.I.R. the accident took place on the well of Bhagirath which is situated on his agricultural land. It has also come in the F.I.R. as also in the claim petition that on the well they were operating the boring machine with the aid of compressor and the compressor was working with the help of the tractor. Thus, with the aid and use of tractor and compressor the boring machine was being operated. In operating the boring machine they were also using gillet detonators and other explosive substance. On account of explosion five persons died on the spot. The L.Rs. of the deceased persons have filed separate claim petitions.
8. Now, the common question which arises for consideration in all the appeals before this court is that for awarding interim compensation under Section 140(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on principle of no fault liability what has to be considered by the Tribunals. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 140 of the Act give clear answer to the question. Sub-section (3) of Section 140 specifically provides that in any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-section (4) also specifically provides that a claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made. In view of these clear provisions of law the scope of inquiry on this subject is very limited at this stage. Thus, the Claims Tribunal is not required to consider the wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement, the claim has been made, while considering the application for interim compensation.
9. In these cases there is no dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident. There is also no dispute about the use of motor vehicle in the accident. In case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777 (SC), in which petrol tanker collided with a truck lying turtle on its side at some distance from road and because of the leakage of petrol, explosion and fire took place. After interval of four to four and half hours injuries were caused to the deceased by explosion and fire. It was held by the Apex Court that the same could be said to be due to accident arising out of the use of vehicle. In the aforesaid case it has further been held by the Apex Court that the expression 'use of a motor vehicle' in Section 92A covers accident which occurs both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary. The word 'use' has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile, on account of breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. The causal relationship between the use of a motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and approximate and it can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said action need not be direct and immediate. This construction of expression 'arising out of use of a motor vehicle' in Section 92A enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment.
10. Admittedly, in all the cases the motor vehicle tractor was being used on the well, situated on the field of Bhagirath for operating a boring machine with the help of compressor. Therefore, it can be presumed that it was being used for improvement of water facility in the well for irrigation purposes. Though, the claimants, who were third party, have not pleaded this, but it has come in the F.I.R. as well as the claim petition that the well is situated on the agricultural land of Bhagirath and certainly this activity can come within the purview of agricultural operation for the improvement of water facility in the well.
11. So far as the scope of Section 140 of the Act of 1988 for grant of compensation under no fault liability is concerned, in the case of National Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Thaglu Singh, 1995 ACJ 248 (MP), the Division Bench of this court, placing reliance on a decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 1988 ACJ 612 (Gauhati), from Gauhati High Court, has already held that what is required to be seen at the time of considering the application under Section 140 of the Act for grant of compensation under no fault liability is whether there is any insurance of the vehicle or not? If the vehicle is insured and the death or permanent disablement has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, then it is not required for the claimant to prove any wrongful act, negligent act or default of the owner of the vehicle, as has also been held by the Apex Court in case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777 (SC).
12. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion and in the light of clear-cut provisions of Section 140 of the Act of 1988 for grant of compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault liability and also looking to the involvement and nexus of the offending vehicle in accident, which was under 'use' at the time of accident there is no scope for any interference in the impugned interim award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable for payment of interim compensation because the underlying idea behind Section 140 is prompt and immediate payment of compensation to the victim and also to the L.Rs. of the victim. The same cannot be allowed to be frustrated by raising various defences by the insurance company because the disposal of the main case would naturally take some time. In case it is ultimately found that the insurance company is not liable, it can recover the amount from the insured and may also take permission from the court at the time of final disposal of the claim petition for its recovery from the insured, but at this stage the Claims Tribunal is not required to look into the defence available to the insurance company, therefore, looking to the benevolent objective behind this principle, I do not think that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in passing the impugned interim awards.
13. In the result, all the aforesaid appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
14. This order be retained in M.A. No. 978 of 1997 and a copy each be placed in the record of connected M.A. Nos. 980, 985, 986 and 987 of 1997.