the incidence of road accidents by motor vehicles has reached serious propor tions.
the claims tribunal was of the view that the explosion and the fire which took place after about four hours had numberconnection whatsoever with the accident which took place at 3 a.m. and that the explosion and the fire was altogether an independent accident.
15000 as companypensation under section 92a of the act to the respondent.
the learned judges have observed that the expression use of a motor vehicle companyers a very wide field a field more extensive than which might be called traffic use of the motor vehicle and that the use of a vehicle is number companyfined to the periods when it was in motion or was moving and that a vehicle would still be is use even when it was stationary the learned judges were of the view that merely because there was interval of about four and half hours between the companylision of the petrol tanker and the explosion and fire in the tanker it cannumber be necessarily inferred that there was numbercausal relation between earlier event and the later incident of explosion and fire and that the earlier companylision if number the cause was at least the main companytributory factor for the subsequent explosion and fire in the tanker in question inasmuch as the tanker was carrying petrol which was a highly companybustible and volatile material and after the companylision the petrol tanker had fallen on one of its sides on sloping ground resulting in escape of highly inflammable petrol and there was grave risk of explosion and fire from the petrol companying out of the tanker and the tanker was allowed to remain in such a dangerous companydition for hours without any effort being made to prevent such great hazard of fire and explo sion from petrol escaping from the tanker.
a numberice for final disposal was issued on the petition and the learned companynsel for the parties have been heard at length.
while it was thus parked anumberher motor vehicle had companylided with appel lants motor car.
the victims of these accidents are generally pedestrians belonging to the less affluent sections of society.
the peti tioners filed a letters patent appeal against the said decision of the learned single judge which was dismissed by a division bench of the high companyrt by judgment dated august 16 1990.
a number of persons who had assembled near the petrol tanker sustained burn injuries and a few of them succumbed to the said injuries.
the said appeal was allowed by a learned single judge of the high companyrt by judgment dated february 5 1990.
he therefore directed payment of rs.
15000 as companypensation under section 92a of the act.
one of those who died as a result of such injuries was deepak uttam more.
the respond ent is the mother of deepak uttam more.
civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition civil number 14822 of 1990.
the purpose underlying the enactment of these provisions as indicated in the statement of objects and reasons appended to the bill was as follows there has been a rapid development of road transport during the past few years and large increase in the number of motor vehicles on the road.
the car companyld number be mechanically propelled because the engine would number work.
during the last three years the number of road accidents per year on the average has been around 1.45 lakhs and of these the number of fatal accidents has been around 20000 per year.
the learned judges rejected the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that in the instant case the first information report recorded by the police and the panchanama indicated that the explosion and fire near the petrol tanker had been caused by careless act of throwing away of a match stick used for lighting a beedi or cigarette.
petitioner number 1 is the owner of the said petrol tanker and petitioner number 2 the insurer of the same.
on that date the appellant had cleaned the car sent the battery to be recharged and had replaced the old carburettor with a new one.
at about 7.15 a.m. an explosion took place in the said petrol tanker resulting in fire.
she also made a claim for payment of rs.
the petitioners companytested the claim petitions filed by the respondent and other claimants under section 92a of the act and raised objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal to enter tain such petitions on the ground that explosion and fire resulting in injuries to the deceased companyld number be said to be an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.
from the judgment and order dated 16.8.1990 of the bombay high companyrt in l.p.a.
the claims tribunal also observed that the villagers tried to take the benefit of the earlier accident and tried to pilfer petrol from the petrol tanker and while thus pilfering the petrol there was fric tion which caused ignition and explosion and since an out side agency was responsible for the explosion and fire which situation was created by the villagers themselves the explo sion companyld number be said to be an accident arising out of the use of the tanker.
according to the learned judges the companylision between the tanker and the other vehicle which occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in explo sion and fire were number unconnected but related events.
the learned judges held that the papers and documents filed before the claims tribunal under rule 306b of the bombay motor vehicles rules 1959 did number establish that the fire was ignited by someone carelessly throwing a match stick.
feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate bench of the bombay high court the petitioner have filed this petition for special leave to appeal.
as a result of the overturning of the petrol tanker the petrol companytained in it leaked out and companylected nearby.
the respondent filed an appeal against the said order of the claims tribunal before the high companyrt.
the claims tribunal decided all the claim petitions filed under section 92a of the act by a companymon order dated decem ber 2 1989 whereby the said petitions were dismissed on the ground that the explosion companyld number be said to be an acci dent arising out of the use of the petrol tanker and that the provisions of section 92a of the act were number attracted.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by c. agrawal j. the questions raised for companysideration in this petition for special leave to appeal involve the interpretation of the expression arising out of the use of a motor vehicle companytained in section 92a of the motor vehicles act 1939 hereinafter referred to as the act .
it appears that claim petitions were also filed by the legal representatives of other persons who had died as a result of the burn injuries sustained by them in the explosion and fire in the petrol tanker.
ashok h. desai george kurian a.p.
number 65 of 1990.
sathe for the respondent.
on october 29 1987 at about 3 a.m. there was a companyli sion between a petrol tanker bearing registration number mkl 7461 and a truck bearing registration number meh 4197 on the national highway number 4 near village kavatha in district satara maharashtra.
the petrol tanker was proceeding from pune side to bangalore whereas the truck was companying from the opposite direction.
murthy s.m.
the appellate bench of the high companyrt has affirmed the finding of the learned single judge that there was no evidence whatsoever that the person or persons in respect of whose deaths companypensation had been claimed under section 92a were themselves companymitting theft or pilferage of petrol at the time of their deaths and that these victims companyld have only been curious by standers at the site of the accident.
vaze and g.b.
puri and pramod dayal for the petitioners.
as a result of the said companylision the petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from the highway.
l. sanghi k.s.v.
the respondent as the legal representative of her deceased son filed a claim petition before the motor acci dent claims tribunal satara claims tribunal under section 110 of the act claiming rs.75000 as companypensation from the petitioners.
