LexNEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus YADU SAMBHAJI MORE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 160
A
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
B
V.
YADU SAMBHAJI MORE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2005)
JANUARY 07, 2011
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - ss. 110A and 92A - Claim
for no-fault compensation uls 92A - Allowed by the Supreme
c Court holding that the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker
resulting in the death of victim was due to accident arising out
of the use of the motor vehicle, the petrol tanker -
Applications u/s. 110A - Dismissed by Claims Tribunal,
however allowed by the High Court holding that the order of
0 the Supreme Court uls 92A was conclusive on the issue - On
appeal held: On the basis of the evidences led by the
opposite party, no new points were raised before the Claims
Tribunal that can be said to have not been raised before the
Supreme Court u/s 92A - Decision rendered by the Supreme
E Court on an application u/s 92A was completely binding on
the Claims Tribunal - Claims Tribunal could not come to any
finding inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court.
There was a collision involving the petrol tanker and
the other truck resulting in leakage from the tanker. Few
F hours later, there was a fire and explosion resulting in the
death of 46 persons, who had assembled at the accident
site. The heirs and legal representatives of the victims
filed claim petitions for compensation under Section 110A
of the .Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the owner of the
G petrol tanker and the appellant, the insurer; and for no-
fault compensation under Section 92A of the Act. The
Claims Tribunal dismissed all the claim petitions filed
under Section 92A of the Act on the ground that the fire
and the explosion could not be said to be accident
. H
160
1 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. YADU 161
SAMBHAJI MORE & ORS.
arising out of the use of the petrol tanker and there was
A
--{
a time gap of about four hours. The appeals were filed
before the High Court. One 'VU' whose son died in the
accident also filed a'n appeal. The Single Judge of the
High Court set aside the order pas~ed by the Claims
Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the
B
order passed by the Single Judge. Aggrieved, the owner
of the tanker and the insurance company filed SLP and
the same was dismissed. The judgment was reported as
* Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. vs. Vatschala Uttam More
where it was held that the fire and explosion of the petrol c
tanker in which son of 'VU' lost his life could be said to
have resulted from an accident arising out of the use of
the motor vehicle, petrol tanker, thus, allowed the claim
of no-fault compensation by and/or on behalf of the
victims. As regards the applications filed under Section
D
11 OA of the Act, the Claims Tribunal dismissed all
applications. The High Court allowed the appeal holding
that the *Shivaji Dayanu Patifs case was conclusive on
the issue that the death of the victim, caused by the fire
and explosion of the petrol tanker, had resulted from an .E
accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle,
namely the petrol tanker. However, the High Court on a
. ""'\
prayer made by the appellant, granted them certificate to
appeal to this Court. Therefore, the appellant filed the
instant appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal,. the Court
HELD: 1.1 On the basis of the evidences later on
adduced before the Tribunal in the main proceeding
.~
under Section 11 OA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it G
might be possible for the Claims Tribunal to arrive at a
finding at variance with the finding recorded by a superior
court on the same issue on an application under Section
92A of the Act. But the variant finding by the Tribunal
must be based on some material facts coming to light H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 1 S.C.R.
A from the evidences led before it that were not available
before the superior court while dealing with the
proceeding under Section 92A of the Act. However, in the
instant case, as correctly noted by the High Court, the
position is entirely different. [Para 13] [168-G-H; 169-A-B]
8
1.2 The evidences of the OWs adduced before the
Claims Tribunal, in particular the depositions of the owner
of the petrol tanker, who was examined himself as OW1
and the driver of the ill-fated petrol tanker who was
c examined as OW2 are examined and the judgment of the
Tribunal is perused. In the evidences of the OWs, there
was no new material fact that Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.