NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANOHARAN SHILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reach and extent of the phraseology 'arising out of the use of a motor vehicle' embodied in section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is the key question for adjudication in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Arjun Shill (since deceased) along with others boarded the bus bearing No. TR-03-1217 as a passenger from Udaipur to Agartala on 21.1.1999 which had to pass through the places called Bagma and Bishramganj, an extremist infested area and high danger prone zone. The passengers of the bus insisted the driver not to proceed towards Bishramganj without an armed escort. The driver put a deaf ear to the entreaties of the passengers and advanced to Bishramganj. When the vehicle reached a place called Pathaliaghat near Don Bosco School, the extremists intercepted the vehicle and started firing on the passengers. As a result Arjun Shill sustained bullet injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the legal representatives of the deceased son, presented before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, a claim petition. An application was also made before the Tribunal, under section 140 of the Act. The owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company (petitioner in this case), insurer of the vehicle filed separate written objections resisting the claim. The claimant submitted the copy of the F.I.R. and post-mortem report in respect of the deceased. Post-mortem certificate was issued by the hospital. The owner of the offending vehicle had also submitted the registration certificate, tax token, insurance policy, driving licence of the driver who drove the vehicle in question and fitness certificate of the vehicle, etc. The learned Tribunal considering all the aspects of the matter awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum w.e.f. 30.3.1999, i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition by the award dated 3.3.2000 in Misc. (MAC) No. 36 of 1999 as an interim measure, against the insurance company. The legality and validity of the aforementioned award is under challenge in this proceeding by the insurance company.

(3.) Mr. Bhanu Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner insurance company, strenuously urged that the event that took place on 21.1.1999 at Pathaliaghat on the road to Agartala, cannot under any circumstances be said to be an accident 'arising out of the use of a motor vehicle' and, therefore, the learned Tribunal fell into grave error in entertaining an application under section 140 of the Act. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel submitted that the deceased was killed at the hands of the extremist elements and not in an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. The learned counsel in his lengthy argument adverted to the volatile situation pertaining to law and order in and around the place of occurrence. The vehicle in question was not insured by the company for such events. The policy did not cover the risk of such eventuality. Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel submitted that assuming the event to be an accident, in the instant case the accident did not 'arise out of the use of the motor vehicle'. There is/was no direct and proximate causal connection between the motor vehicle and the death of Arjun Shill and, therefore, the same was beyond the purview of section 140 of the Act. Parliament in section 140 (1) of the Act used the expression "where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle" and deliberately avoided the expression 'caused by'. There is no statutory requirement for a direct and proximate causal connection between the accident and the use of the vehicle for the purpose of awarding compensation under section 140 of the Act. No such legislative intendment is discernible. The expression "arising out of the use of motor vehicle" in sections 140, 165 and 166 broadened and widened the umbrella and cover of the statutory benefit to the victims of an accident enlivening the beneficial object of the statute.