SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL Vs. VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal involve the interpretation of the expression "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" contained in Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) On October 29, 1987, at about 3 a.m., there was a collision between a petrol tanker bearing Registration No. MKL-7461 and a truck bearing Registration No. MEH-4197 on the National Highway No. 4 near village Kavatha, in District Satara, Maharashtra. The petrol tanker was proceeding from Pune side to Bangalore whereas the truck was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the said collision, the petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from the highway. As a result of the overturning of the petrol tanker, the petrol contained in it leaked out and collected nearby. At about 7.15 a.m., an explosion took place in the said petrol tanker resulting in fire. A number of persons who had assembled near the petrol tanker sustained burn injuries and a few of them succumbed to the said injuries. One of those who died as a result of such injuries was Deepak Uttam More. The respondent is the mother of Deepak Uttam More. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the said petrol tanker and Petitioner No. 2, the insurer of the same.

(3.) The respondent, as the legal representative of her deceased son, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara ('Claims Tribunal') under S. 110 of the Act claiming Rs. 75,000/-as compensation from the petitioners. She also made a claim for payment of Rs. 15,000/-as compensation u/ S. 92A of the Act. It appears that claim petitions were also filed by the legal representatives of other persons who had died as a result.of the burn injuries sustained by them in the explosion and. fire in the petrol tanker. The petitioners contested the claim petitions filed by the respondent and other claimants u/S.92A of the Act and raised objection with regard to thejurisdiction of tne Claims Tribunal to entertain such petitions on the ground that explosion and fire resulting in injuries to the deceased could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Claims Tribunal, decided all the claim petitions filed under S. 92A of the Act by a common order dated December 2, 1989 whereby the said petitions were dismissed on the ground that the explosion could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of the petrol tanker and that the provisions of S. 92A of the Act were not attracted. The Claims Tribunal was of the view that the explosion and the fire which took place after about four hours had no connection whatsoever with the accident which took place at 3 a.m. and that the explosion and the fire was altogether an independent accident. The Claims Tribunal also observed that the villagers tried to take the benefit of the earlier accident and tried to pilfer petrol from the petrol tanker and while thus pilfering the petrol there was friction which caused ignition and explosion and since an outside agency was responsible for the explosion and fire which situation was created by the villagers themselves the explosion could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of the tanker. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order of the Claims Tribunal before the High Court. The said appeal was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated February 5, 1990. The learned single Judge disagreed with the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the explosion was a direct consequence of the attempt to pilfer petrol from the tanker and observed that the Tribunal was not justified in proceeding on the assumption that all the injured persons and deceased were engaged in pilfering the petrol and the explosion was a direct consequence of the same. The learned single Judge also held that in view of sub-see. (4) of S. 92A of the Act if there is a wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the deceased or the injured, the claim u/ S. 92A of the Act for compensation for no fault liability cannot be rejected. With regard to the applicability of S. 92A of the Act, the learned single Judge observed that the fact that at the material time the tanker was not being driven on the Highway but was lying turtle on its side would make no difference and that it was a vehicle lying on the side of the Highway and would be covered by the expression 'use' in S. 92A of the Act and compensation would be payable under no fault liability of S. 92A of the Act. He, therefore, directed payment of Rupees 15,000/- as compensation u/ S. 92A of the Act to the respondent. The petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the said decision of the learned single Judge which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated August 16, 1990. The Appellate Bench of the High Court has affirmed the finding of the learned single Judge that there was no evidence whatsoever that the person or persons in respect otwhose deaths compensation had been claimed under S. 92A were themselves committing theft or pilferage of petrol at the time of their deaths and that these victims could have only been curious by-standers at the site of the accident. The learned Judges have observed that the expression 'use of a motor vehicle' covers a very wide field, a field more extensive than which might be called traffic use of the motor vehicle and that the use of a vehicle is not confined to the periods when it was in motion or was moving and that vehicle would still be in use even when it was stationary. The learned Judges were of the view that merely because there was interval of about four and half hours between the collision of the petrol tanker and the explosion and fire in the tanker, it cannot be necessarily inferred that there was no causal relation between earlier event and the later incident of explosion and fire and that the earlier collision if not the cause was at least the main contributory factor for the subsequent explosion and fire in the tanker in question inasmuch as the tanker was carrying petrol which was a highly combustible and volatile material and after the collision the petrol tanker had fallen on one of its sides on sloping ground resulting in escape of highly inflammable petrol and there was grave risk of explosion and fire from the petrol coming out of the tanker and the tanker was allowed to remain in such a dangerous condition for hours without any effort being made to prevent such great hazard of fire and explosion from petrol escaping from the tanker. According to the learned Judges, the collision between the tanker and the' other vehicle which occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events. The learned Judges rejected the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that in the instant case the first information report recorded by the police and the panchanama indicated that the explosion and fire near the petrol tanker had been caused by careless act of throwing away of a match stick used for lighting a beedi or cigarette. The learned Judges held that the papers and documents filed before the Claims Tribunal under Rule 306B of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 did not establish that the fire was ignited by someone carelessly throwing a match stick. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court, the petitioners have file this petition for special leave to appeal. A notice for final disposal was issued on the petition and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.