What is a motor vehicle accident?

 

WHAT IS A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT?

INTRODUCTION

The claims for compensation including claims for compensation under sections 140 or 163 A ( no fault liability) in respect of accidents involving the (1) death of, or (2) bodily injury to persons or (3) damages to any property of a third party arising out of use of motor vehicles, can be filed before the motor accident claims tribunal.

Accident

Accident means an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.

The word ‘accident’ has nowhere been defined in the act or rules framed under the motor vehicles act. Ordinarily the word accidenct means an event which occurs without one’s foresight or expectation.[Nagaraja Moopanar Vs. Emperor, AIR 1928 9Mad) 364]

Arising out of the use of motor vehicle:

The phrase motor vehicle has been defined in sec 2 (28) of the act as follows:

Section 2 (28) : “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailor, but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty – five cubic centimeters;

In mangilal  VsM.P.S.R.T.C. Bhopal [AIR 1988 MP 109 = 1988 ACJ 460], it has been held that a ‘motor vehicle’ which is put on road, is in a state of being in employment or constant use, and consequently, any accident involving such a motor vehicle causing death or bodily injury to any person, is an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.

In pushpa rani chopra Vs Anolha singh [1975 ACJ 396[del], the delhi high court, while constructing the word ‘use’ in section 110 of the 1939 act, held that the said word has been used in the wider sense, and it covers all employments of the motor vehicle on the public places including its driving, parking, keeping stationary, repairing, or learning and unattended on the road or for any other purpose.

The same view has also been taken by the kerala high court in motor and general finance (india) ltd., VS Mary mony [1991 ACJ 101 9ker)] case.

The apex court has considered comprehensively the term arising out of the use, the accident of a motor vehicle in shivaraj dayanu patil Vs. vatchala uttem more [1991 ACJ 777 9SC 0 = 1991 (2) TAC 503] case, and held that the word ‘use’ has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving but was stationary and further held that the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of breakdown or mechanical defect or accident.

It was held in Union of india  VS  Dhanraji devi [1989 ACJ 673 (All)] that, the expression ‘arising out of the use of motor cycle’ is much wider than the term ‘as a result of the use of motor vehicle’.

Death of autorickshaw driver in the vehicle;

In Rita devi and others Vs. New india assurance co ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC), some passengers hired autorickshaw. It was never recovered and body of the driver was recovered by the police on the next day. Passengers committed an act of felony of stealing the autorickshaw and eliminated the driver. The legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation for the death of the deceased driver stating the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle. High court held that there was no motor accident as contemplated under the act and it was a murder, hence a petition for claim under the act did not arise. The supreme court held that the murder was due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle and claimants are entitled to cpmpensation.

Bomb explosion in the bus:

In samir chand VS Managing director, assam transport corporation [1998 (2) TAC 643 9SC) = 1998 ACJ 1351], a case, an explosion took place inside the bus, and there was no usual escort. Further, the conductor and the driver of the bus had not taken any care. It was held that there was negligent on their part, and the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle.

Fall from the foot board of the bus:

It was held in Varadamma Vs H. Mallappa gowda [1972 ACJ 375 (mysore)] that due to the negligence of conductor in giving signal to the driver, the deceased fell down and the accident was said to be due to use of the motor vehicle.

Bus washed away over a cause way:

In chaurasiya & co. VS pramila Rao [1974 ACJ 375 (Mys)] the bus was washed away by the water since there was no break in causation; the accident was held to have arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle.

Collision with parked vehicle:

In pushparani chopra Vs. Anokha singh [1975 ACJ 396 (DEL)], a motorcycle dashed against the protruding rear end of a stationary truck in a dark night resulting in the death of the motorcyclist and his children. It was held that the collision with the parked vehicle was an accident out of use of the vehicle.

Accident caused by moving a parked lorry due to dash by speeding lorry

In A.Ajjapareddy Vs. Selvaraj [1977 ACJ 482 (kar DB)] the claimant was sitting alongside the stationary lorry. At that time, a speeding lorry, came and dashed against the stationary lorry, thereby moving the stationary lorry and caused injuries to the legs of the claimant. It was held that the accident was due to the use of motor vehicle.

Accident due to moving of an unattended bus:

In General manager, K.S.R.T.C. Vs S.Satalingappa [1979 ACJ 452 (ker – DB), a bus was stationed by its driver on a slope unattended. The bus suddenly stated moving and dashed against a tea stall, causing considerable damage to the stall and injury to the claimant. It was held that, halting of the bus on a slope by the driver, was a negligent act, and the accident had arisen out of use of the motor vehicle.

 

Conclusion:

Considering the above decisions and in order to claim compensation under section 140 and 163-A of the act, the claimant should allege in the claim petition that the accident was due to negligent act of the driver or conductor irrespective of a running vehicle or in collision of vehicles or on a parked vehicle or happening of any incident inside or outside the motor vehicle. In other words, the claimant should establish to seek compensation under motor vehicles act that the accident arose out of the use of  the motor vehicle.