KALIM KHAN & OTHERS versus FIMIDABEE & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 03-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
KALIM KHAN & OTHERS
v.
FIMIDABEE & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8785-8786 of 2015)
JULY 03, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –  ss. 165 and 166 – Claim petition
– Maintainability of – Compensation – Liability of insurer – Blasting
operation carried out in the field of the owner, for digging of the
well using battery of the tractor – Stone fell on deceased leading to
his death – Tribunal holding that the accident was a vehicular
accident and vehicle being used for commercial purpose, there was
breach of insurance policy by the owner, awarded compensation
fastening the liability on the owner – High Court held that the claim
petition was not maintainable since battery being detached from
the vehicle and not part of it, the accident did not arise out of use
of vehicle – On appeal, held: There has to be some causal relation
or the incident must relate to it – It should not be totally unconnected
– Keeping in view the evidence on record, the tribunal rightly held
that the battery was installed in the tractor and explosives were
charged by the battery – Purpose was to dig the well in the field –
Vehicle was in use as stipulated u/s. 165 – Thus, the High Court
erred on the said score – Furthermore, the vehicle being used for
commercial purpose, there was breach of insurance policy and, thus,
the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation – Though, the
case of insurer that the work of digging of well in a field used for
agricultural purpose would embrace an activity associated with
agriculture for irrigating the field is accepted, however, this would
not help in fastening the liability since there was no analysis of the
terms and conditions of the policy and evidence of witnesses by the
High Court – Parties relegated to the High Court to determine about
fastening of the liability on the insurer or the owner – Until then
insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants as
determined by the tribunal which would be subject to the conclusion
of the remanded appeals.
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 561
    561
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The tribunal has treated the accident to be a
vehicular accident and entertained the claim. The High Court
did not analyze any evidence brought on record to come to the
conclusion that the battery of the vehicle was practically detached
from the vehicle and was not a part of the vehicle. On the contrary,
the tribunal noticed that the panchnama of the tractor clearly
showed that the tractor was in the field and the blasting machine
was found on tractor with wrapped gas pipe and an explosive
battery found on the tractor with the wooden cover. It referred to
the evidence, to record the finding that the blasting machine was
kept on the tractor driven by the driver engaged by the owner
and the tractor was used for digging of the well with the blasting
machine. The insurer, as is evident, had only raised a singular
plea with regard to use of the tractor, namely, ‘commercial
purpose’ and on that foundation, it had advanced the stance that
there had been fundamental breach of the insurance policy.
Keeping in view the evidence on record, the view expressed by
the tribunal that the battery was still installed on the vehicle and
the power was drawn from the battery for explosive purposes, is
accepted. [Para 6] [568-B-D]
1.2 Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it vivid
that the tribunal can adjudicate the claims for compensation in
respect of accidents arising out of use of motor vehicles. Thus,
the fundamental requirement is that the accident should arise
out of the use of the motor vehicle. If there is no use of the motor
vehicle, the question of vehicular accident will not arise. Section
2(44) defines ‘tractor’ to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself
constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the
purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller. [Paras 7, 8]
[569-A-B, D-E]
1.3  It is limpid that the expression ‘use of the vehicle’
under certain circumstances can be attracted when the vehicle is
stationary or static. The causal relationship should exist between
violation and the accident caused. There has to be some act done
by the person concerned in causing the accident. The commission
or omission must have some nexus with the accident. The word
‘use’ need not have an intimate and direct nexus with the accident.
A
B
C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.