Citation : 2005 Local Law (CG) 2
The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed an appeal filed by the parents of five-year-old Shreedeh and set aside a 25 February 2003 order of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bemetara, District Durg, which had dismissed their compensation claim at the threshold. Justice Fakhruddin (Acting Chief Justice) remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on merits and directed that the parents’ no-fault claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act be decided within 30 days of the parties’ appearance.
The case arises from a fatal incident on 28 March 2002 in Village Mauoo. A truck (originally MPC/1909, renewed as CG-04/ZC-2282) had been parked in a narrow lane near a residence. According to the parents, the driver and conductor opened the side panel to unload stone boulders without due care, causing boulders to fall on the child, who later died in hospital on 29 March 2002. An FIR was registered. The parents sought ₹10 lakh compensation under Section 166 and interim compensation under Section 140, but the Tribunal held the claim was not maintainable, reasoning that the accident did not arise out of the “use” of a motor vehicle.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court said the Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim without taking evidence, especially when negligence was specifically attributed to the driver and conductor during unloading. The Court noted that Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act confers jurisdiction on Claims Tribunals for accidents “arising out of the use of motor vehicles,” a phrase that has been interpreted broadly by higher courts.
To underline that breadth, the judgment refers to key precedents. In Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, the Supreme Court held that “use” of a vehicle is not limited to when it is moving; it can also cover stationary vehicles and incidents connected to their operation, even when there is a time gap between events if the causal chain remains intact. In Rita Devi v. New India Assurance, the Court explained that for claims under Sections like 163-A (and by parity of reasoning, no-fault claims), the question is whether death or disablement “arose out of the use” of a motor vehicle, not whether a specific person’s negligence is proved. The Court also cited Union of India v. United India Insurance, which clarifies that MACT is a substitute for civil courts on claims arising from the use of motor vehicles and that “use” must be read widely.
The respondents had relied on an Orissa High Court ruling to argue that careless handling during loading/unloading might lack nexus with vehicle “use.” The Chhattisgarh High Court distinguished that case on facts, observing that here the allegation was direct negligence by the truck’s driver and conductor while operating the side panel to unload boulders.
Finding that the Tribunal had failed to consider the material on record and had denied the claimants an opportunity to lead evidence, the High Court remanded the case to MACT, Bemetara, to decide the claim on its merits in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14 March 2005, and the Tribunal was asked to dispose of the Section 140 application within 30 days of that date.
This order gives the bereaved parents a renewed chance to prove their claim and clarifies that accidents tied to loading or unloading operations can fall within the ambit of “use” of a motor vehicle, depending on the facts and evidence led.
Case Details : Misc. Appeal No. 265 of 2003, Holu Ram Nishad and Ors. vs. Ishak Mohmmed and Ors. (18.01.2005)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anand Kumar Tiwari, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Vipra Sen Agrawa, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Abhishek Sinha, Adv. for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 3; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 110(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 165, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 95 (1) (b) (i), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 96 (2) (b) (ii)
Cases Referred:
Kiran Chhabra and Anr. vs. Khajji Patel and Ors. ; Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Ors. vs. Vatschala Uttam More ; Rita Devi and Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. ; Union of India (UOI) vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. ; Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak ; The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) ; Union of India (UOI) vs. V. Bhimeswara Reddi and Ors. ; Swarnalata Dutta Barua and Ors. vs. National Transport India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ; Orissa Road Transport Company Limited vs. Umakanta Singh and Ors. ; Union of India (UOI) vs. Bhagwati Prasad and Ors.
======
मोटर वाहन – मुआवजा – नो-फॉल्ट देयता – मोटर वाहन अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 140 और 166
अपीलकर्ता मृतक बच्चे के माता-पिता हैं, जिसकी मृत्यु एक मोटर दुर्घटना में हो गई थी। उन्होंने धारा 166 के तहत मुआवजा दावा प्रस्तुत किया और धारा 140 के तहत नो-फॉल्ट देयता का आवेदन भी दिया। मोटर दुर्घटना दावा अधिकरण (MACT) ने यह कहते हुए दोनों आवेदन खारिज कर दिए कि दावा स्वीकार्य नहीं है। इसके विरुद्ध यह अपील दायर की गई।
उच्च न्यायालय ने पाया कि अधिकरण ने उपलब्ध रिकॉर्ड पर मौजूद सामग्री पर बिल्कुल विचार नहीं किया और केस को शुरुआती स्तर पर ही खारिज कर दिया। रिकॉर्ड के अनुसार, प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 1 और 2 ने लापरवाही से, बिना सावधानी बरते, ट्रक का साइड पैनल खोलकर पत्थर उतारने की प्रक्रिया शुरू की, जिसके दौरान बच्चे पर पत्थर गिरने से उसकी मृत्यु हुई।
अधिकरण ने दावेदारों को सबूत प्रस्तुत करने का कोई अवसर भी नहीं दिया। इन परिस्थितियों में, कोर्ट ने माना कि अधिकरण का आदेश प्रथमदृष्टया अनुचित है और उसे रद्द किया जाना चाहिए।
इसी आधार पर अपील स्वीकार की गई, अधिकरण का आदेश रद्द किया गया और मामला दोबारा विचार के लिए दावाधिकरण को भेजा गया, ताकि वह उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर मामले का नये सिरे से विधि अनुसार निर्णय करे।
