Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order  ||  Supreme Court: Certiorari Can Quash a Tribunal Decision That is Grossly Perverse  ||  Supreme Court: Informant’s Consent is Not Required to Quash a Case Settled With the Victim  ||  Madras High Court: False Posts Against a Minister are Not an Offence Without Intent to Cause Alarm  ||  Delhi High Court: Police Cannot Pick and Choose Among Accused Persons for Arrest  ||  J&K High Court: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 and are Outside Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Calcutta High Court: Third Parties Can Challenge Inaction Against Unauthorised Construction  ||  Madras High Court: Being an Advocate Does Not Mean a Person Cannot Commit an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Reopen Settled Marital Disputes to Avoid Maintenance Liability  ||  Calcutta High Court: State Cannot Deny CRMI Seats to Foreign Medical Graduates Citing Stipend Costs    

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxman Hirman Shewale and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (04 Oct 2021)

Expression "Use of the vehicle" can be attracted even where the vehicle is stationary

MANU/MH/3002/2021

Motor Vehicles

The Appellant-Insurance Company is challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal'). By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,16,398 (inclusive of the no fault liability) to the first Respondent-claimant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 28th October 2008 (the date on which the first Respondent tendered his evidence) till realisation.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the injuries suffered by the first Respondent cannot be said to be arising out of an accident, of the nature specified under sub Section 1 of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the injuries sustained by the first Respondent cannot be said to be arising out of the use of motor vehicle', within the meaning of sub Section 1 of Section 165 of the Act of 1988.

In a recent case in Kalim Khan and Ors. vs. Fimidabee and Ors., a blasting machine was carried on a tractor for digging a well in an agricultural field. During the said operation, a splinter stone flew and hit on the head of a person resulting into his death. The Tribunal awarded compensation which was set aside by the High Court holding that, the battery was detached from the tractor when it was used to trigger the explosives. In short, the High Court held that, the battery not being the part of the vehicle at the time of the explosion, the accident could not be said to be arising out of the use of the vehicle. The Supreme Court found that, the vehicle was stationary and the battery was installed on the tractor which was used for trigging the explosives. The Supreme Court therefore held that, the accident occurred on account of the use of the vehicle.

In the facts of the present case and in as much as, the first Respondent suffered the injury in the process of the iron bars being unloaded from the vehicle, the accident can be said to be arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. It is necessary to note that the Supreme Court in the case of Kalim Khan and Ors. vs. Fimidabee and Ors. has held that, in certain circumstances, the expression "use of the vehicle" can be attracted even where the vehicle is stationary. The impugned award do not suffers from any infirmity so as to require interference. Appeal dismissed.

Relevant : Kalim Khan and Ors. vs. Fimidabee and Ors. MANU/SC/0677/2018

Tags : ACCIDENT   AWARD   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved