GOURI BI Vs. KHEMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these 105 appeals have been preferred by the various claimants who filed claim petitions seeking to recover compensation in respect of either the injuries sustained by them or the death of someone on whom they were dependent for their sustenance, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions preferred by them under Section 110-a of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the act'). The tribunal without recording any evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the several persons sustained injuries or died, could not be held to arise out of the user of the motor vehicle and as such it had no jurisdiction to try the claim petition.

(2.) the case putforward by the claimants in all the cases in brief is as here under : on 30th october, 1985, a tanker truck bearing registration No. Mst - 6277 belonging to the 2nd respondent filled with motor spirit at wadla terminal, Bombay left Bombay towards its destination viz., Hyderabad. On 1-11-1985 at about 7.20 a.m. it was on national high way No. 9 near tadola village within the limits of basavakalyan taluka and respondent-1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and took it to the extreme left side which resulted in toppling of the vehicle and falling in a land adjacent to the road. The driver ran away from the scene leaving the tanker unattended, in a highly dangerous position. The passers by were ignorant of what had happened there and the injured claimants as also the deceased went to the spot to know as to what was happening there and suddenly there was fire in the tanker due to its bursting and the entire area was engulfed in fire and about 70 persons died and 35 persons sustained injuries. Therefore the various claimants sought for recovery of different sums from the owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle in question as also from hindustan petroleum corporation Ltd., To whom the motor spirit belonged.

(3.) 2nd respondent the owner of the truck has denied that the accident took placeas narrated in the petition. It has been pleaded by him that near tadola one person suddenly tried to cross the road in front of the vehicle and in order to save his life, the driver took the truck to the left side and stopped it and thereafter the driver and cleaner got down from the vehicle to answer calls of nature. At that time many persons from neighbouring village came there with buckets, drums, pots and cans to take away the petrol from the tanker thinking that it was kerosene. They also carried with them iron rods, sticks and hammers and they opened the bolts of the container and were engaged in taking away the petrol. At that time the driver and the cleaner requested them not to do so as petrol was highly inflamable and without heeding to their warning the villagers started to collect the petrol in cans, pots, buckets and tins and at that time one person was smoking beedi or cigarette carelessly and on that account the petrol caught fire and the various persons who were engaged in stealing away the petrol were caught in the fire and sustained injuries. Therefore it was urged that the incident took place on account of the gross negligence on the part of the victims and it was not due to the user of the vehicle and as such the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain these claims. Hindustan petroleum corporation contends that it is not a necessary party to the proceedings and therefore the claim should be rejected.