LexSHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL & ANR. versus SMT. VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
SHIVAJI DAYANU PATIL & ANR.
v.
SMT. VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE
JULY 17, 1991
[B.C. RAY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ)
Motor Vehichles Act, 1939: Sections 2( 18) and 92A-'Motor
Vehicle' --Petrol tanker used for transporting petrol-Overturned due
to collision with another motor vehicle-Damaged to the extent that it
.became immobile-Whether ceases to be a 'Motor Vehicle'-Death due
C to explosion and fire taking place few hours after the collision-Both
.connected and related events-Causal relationship between user of the
vehicle and accident-Need not be direct and proximate-Death as a
result of accident arising out of 'use of Motor Vehicle'-No fault
liability-Nature and scope of .
.D
Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: Rules 291-A, 291-B, 297(2),
306cA to 306-D. Adjudication of claims under Section 92A of the Ac/-
Special Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal for expeditious
disposal-Normal procedure prescribed in respect of claims under
Section JIOA-Need not be followed.
E
Words & Phrases: 'use'-'Arisingouto{-Meaningof.
Due to a collision on the highway between a Petrol tanker and a
truck, the Petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its side at some
.. distance from the highway. As a result of it, petrol leaked out and
collected nearby. Nearly four hours after the collision an explosioll
F ,tool< place in the petrol tanker resulting in fire. A large number of
;persous who had assembled near the petrol tanker sustained burn
·inj!!rles; few of them succumbed to the injuries. Respondent's son was
.ime of the persons w!Jo died as such.
Respondent tiled a claim before ttie Motor Accident Claims Tri-
\G
'1!1111111 under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act for Rs.75,000 as
. .;i!Djpeni;ation. She also claimed Rs.15,000 as compensation under
Si:.ction 92A of the Act. The Tribunal.dismissed tl1e claim under Section
l):Z.:\. on the ground that the explosion coul!l not be said to be an acci<!en.t
,!!rising out of tbe use .l!f tile petrol tanker and so t'1e provisions of
Section 92A were noi attracted. It held that the explosion and the tire
:H
which took.place after abo11t four hours of the accident had no con11ec-
26
'
...
S.D. PATIL v. V.U. MORE
2'
tion with the accident and it was altogether a different and indep.endent
accident, It also observed that the villagers took benefit of the ~arller
.·
.
'
;
. ' '
accident and while they were trying to pilfer petrol from the tanker
there was fricl"; ·, which caused the ignition and explosion and since an
outside agenq was responsible therefore the subsequent accident of
explosion and fire could not be said to be an accident arising out of th~
use of the tanker.
On appeal, a Single Judge of the High Court disagreed with the
finding of the Tribunal that the explosion was a direct consequence ,of
the attempt to pilfer petrol from it a.nd further held that in view of
Sub-Section (4) of Section 92A if there was a wrongful act, neglect or
default on the part of the deceased or injured, the ~lalin under Section
92A for compensation for no liability cannot be rejected. He observed
that the fact that at the material time, the tanker was not driven on the
highway but was lying turtle on the side of the highway, would not make
any difference and that the tanker was a vehicle lying on the side of the
highway and would be covered by the expression 'use' in Section 92A of
the Act and so compensation would be payable under 'no fault liability'.
The petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the said deci-
sion and a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same affirm·
A
,...
B
c
•
D
ing the findings of the Single Judge. The Bench held that the.collision
between the tanker and the other vehicle which occurred earlier and the
escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in explosion .E
and fire were not unconnected but related events. It rejected the claiiii
of the petitioners that the first .information report recorded by .the
police and the panchnama indicated that .the explosion and fire near
the petrol tanker had been caused by careless act of throwing away of a
match stick used for lighting a beedi or cigarette.
· ·
Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners preferred the pre·
sent petition for special leave to appeal.
On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the petrol
tanker was not a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 2(18) of the Act, at
F
the time the explosionExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.