NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. REMYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How is the expression "accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle" in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the M.V. Act') to be construed Does that expression take in every accident suffered in the course of use of a motor vehicle Is the causal connection that the accident was suffered when the victim was actually travelling in a motor vehicle sufficient Can the expression "accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle" be read down to mean "accident connected with the use of the motor vehicle" Does the purpose and context of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act justify such an expansion of meaning for the expression These are the first set of questions that arise in these appeals.

(2.) The second question that arises for determination is as to how the expression "permanent disablement" in the body of Section 163-A is to be understood This, in turn, calls for an interpretation of the scope and ambit of Entries 25, 26 and 26-A of Part II Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act also.

(3.) To the vitally relevant facts at the outset. The claimant Remya, a minor girl aged about 12 years suffered injuries while she was travelling in an autorikshaw owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent insurance company (we refer to the parties in the manner in which they are ranked before the Tribunal). While she was travelling in the autorikshaw, a beer bottle thrown from some other vehicle had hit her on her face and consequently she had suffered injuries. She lost vision of one eye completely. She allegedly suffered partial loss of vision of the other eye. She claimed an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- as compensation. The claim was lodged under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act.