Judgment related to Use of Motor Vehicle, Militant Attack, Hijack, Terrorist Attack,Murder, Heart Attack, Lightning – Arising out of Accident under MV Act:

Judgment related to Use of Motor Vehicle, Militant Attack, Hijack, Terrorist Attack,Murder, Heart Attack, Lightning – Arising out of Accident under MV Act:

 

1.Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle, Whether the claim petition is maintainable? Held ; No. SCdecisions referred to.

2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht), 2016 ACJ 523 (P&H), 2017

ACJ 544 (UK), 2018 ACJ 1207 (Sik) [Judgment of Rita Devi v/s NIA Com, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC) followed.

2.Murder Application u/s 163A whether maintainable? Held yes.

Only if motive and intention of the accused person was not to kill deceased but other person and during the scuffle deceased had also been murdered by the accused.

2012 ACJ 1512 (Ker), 2017 ACJ 425 (HP), 2017 ACJ

2067 (Goa), 2018 ACJ 1941, 2019 ACJ 1464 (Pat) – wherein it is held that only because vehicle was backed (reversed) and crushed the deceased it can be presumed that it was intentional murder.

2A Claim petition u/s 140 of the Act – murder of the driver and Khalsi – whether maintainable? Held ; Yes.

2019 ACJ 950 (Pat)

3.Bus came in contact with live wire Claimant died because of electrocution whether IC is liable? Held ; yes.

SC judgment followed. 2012 AAC 2886. 2017 ACJ 1481 (Mad).

4.Claimant sustained fracture when he was trying to replace punctured tyre and when jack suddenly slipped and leg of the claimant is crushed Claimant preferred an application u/s 163A Dismissed by Tribunal by holding that accident had not taken place during driving of the vehicle. Sustainable. Held  ; No.

It is not necessary that vehicle should be in running condition when accident occurred. Even if it was stationary, IC is liable to pay compensation.

2013 ACJ 1561, 2016 ACJ 345 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 2178 HP) – case of tyre burst and its rim hit the injured.

5. Militant Attack Hijack TerroristAttack Fatal in the motor vehicle whether claim petition is maintainable in such cases? Held ; No.

2014 ACJ 1086, 2016 ACJ 712 (T & A)

But contrary views taken in the case of death of security personnel 2014 ACJ 1353 (Ass), 2015 ACJ 2814 (Tri) Bomb Blast in Bus, resulting death of several passengers Whether a claim petition u/s 163A is maintainable? Held ; Yes, as accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. 2014 ACJ 2129 (All)

6.Deceased died because he was crushed by concrete pillar, which fell no him as it was dashed by the offending vehicle Whether IC of offending vehicle liable to pay compensation? Held ; Yes.

2012 AAC 3124.

7.U/s 163A deceased died due to heart attack whether claimants are entitled for compensation u/s 163A of the MV Act? Held ; No. in absence of any evidence to the effect that deceased died due to heavy burden or there any other sustainable ground 2012 ACJ 1134 (AP)Murder – 2012 ACJ (Ker)

Culpable Homicide Altercation between conductor and passenger conductor pushed passenger out of bus – passenger crushed in the said bus – conductor prosecuted u/s 324 & 304 of IPC whether in such situation, since driver failed in his duty to stop the bus, he is liable for accident. Owner of bus vicariously held

liable and IC is directed to indemnify owner of the bus – further held that accident was arising out of use of motor vehicle.

2014 ACJ 2136 – U I I Com. v/s Ramani C.K.

(Ker), 2022 ACJ 1988 (Jhr)

8.Intentional murder by use of Motor Vehicle Whether the claim petition is maintainable? Held ; No. SC decisions referred to.

2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht).

9.Accident occurred when deceased tried to board the bus which did not stop at the decided destination and deceased ran after the bus to board but driver drove off – deceased chase the bus in a Jeep, made the driver to stop the bus and had an altercation with the driver while standing on the middle of the road – bus driver while sitting in the bus pushed deceased and deceased fell down and was ultimately crushed by truck coming from other direction – IC sought to be exonerated on the count that accident did not arise out of use of vehicle Whether sustainable? Held ; No.

2015 ACJ 1400 (Ker)

10. Presumption u/s 108 of Evidence Act can be made applicable and claim petition can be allowed on such presumption? Held – No.

2015 ACJ 1883 (All).

11. When vehicle was requisitioned by the State for police duty and in the militant/terrorist attack occupant sustains fatal injuries – whether under these circumstances State can be held responsible – Held – Yes.

2015 ACJ 2862 (Gua)judgment of SC in the case of NIC v/s Deepa Devi, 2008 ACJ 705 (SC) relied upon.

12– Deceased died due to lightning – whether LRs of deceased are entitled to claim compensation under the M V Act? Held ; No.

They are required to file claim petition under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

2016 ACJ 1202 (AP)

13. Victim/claimant suffered injuries while he was engaged in the work of harvesting soyabean – right hand of victim was caught in the thresher – evidence that power of propulsion was being transmitted from tractor to the thresher during use of which the

accident occurred Whether IC can be held liable? Held.Yes.

2016 ACJ 1587 (Bom), 2017 ACJ 1951 – In the said case injured was loading and unloading good from the stationary vehicle and it has been that accident arose out of use of the Motor Vehicle.

14. Cleaner while helping the Driver to reverse the vehicle came in contact with the live wire and died due to electrocution – whether in such situation, LR of the deceased can claim amount of compensation under the M V Act? Held ; Yes.

2017 ACJ 721.

15. While unloading refrigerators from the stationary vehicle, sustained fatal injuries claim petition u/s 163A Whether maintainable? Held ; yes.

2018 ACJ 291 (Kar)

16. Driver of the truck parked the vehicle on the left side of the road as engine was getting too hot – at that point of time other vehicle hit him and he sustainable fatal injuries – held, that accident arose out of use of the motor vehicle and IC held liable to pay compensation.

2018 ACJ 668 (P&H)

17. While deceased was alighting from bus, bundle of clothes fell on his head – whether same can be said to be arising out of use of motor vehicle? Held – yes.

2018 ACJ 1719 (Bom)

18 – Owner of the car halted his vehicle on road side due heavy rain and during waiting period carbon monoxide gas got into car chamber and family members of the  owner suffocated due to the gas – Whether it can be said that IC is liable under the principle of Arising out of the use of the motor vehicle? Held ; Yes.

2019 ACJ 394 (Del)