Use of Motor Vehicle, Militant Attack- Hijack-Terrorist Attack Murder, Heart Attack, Lightning – Arising out of Accident:-

 

1­ Intentional murder by use  of  Motor Vehicle­  Whether the claim petition is maintainable? ­ Held­ No ­ Rita Devi v/s NIA Com, 2000 ACJ 801 (SC).

2012 ACJ 1188 (Chht), 2016 ACJ 523 (P&H), 2017 ACJ 544 (UK).

 

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)

 

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 – 2021 ACJ 2516 (Chh)

 

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)

5­ Militant Attack­ Hijack­Terrorist Attack­ 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)

Labourer was tightening the screw of the cutter attached with the tractor – driver started tractor and cutter started functioning resulting in amputation of hand – whether it can be said that accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle? ­ Held­ Yes.

2018 ACJ 1125 (MP)

 

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)

 

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)

14­ Deceased driver while driving the heavy vehicle (tanker) felt uneasy and parked his vehicle on the roadside – hospitalized

– died – claim petition filed contending that due to hypertension – Whether such claim petition can be allowed?­ Held­ Yes.

It has been held driving of the heavy vehicle is stressful job and inference can be drawn that deceased parked the vehicle

on the road side on account of stress and strain only and claim petitiion is maintaianable.­ SC Judgement rendered in the case of Param pal Singh v/s. NI Com. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 526 (SC). Whereas, Jyoti Ademma v/s. Plant Engineer, 2006 ACJ 2165 (SC) and Rashida Haroon Kupurade v/s. Divisional Manager, 2010 ACJ 721 (SC) have been distinguished.

2019 ACJ 3086 (Kar)­