The Claims Tribunal pointed out that there was a time gap of about 4 hours between the tanker meeting with the road accident and the fire and explosion of the tanker and there was absolutely numberconnection between the road accident and the fire accident that took place about 4 hours later.
The Claims Tribunal upheld the objection raised by the insurer and the owner of the petrol tanker, and by a companymon order dated December 2, 1989, dismissed all the claim petitions filed under section 92A of the Act on the ground that the fire and the explosion companyld number be said to be accident arising out of the use of the petrol tanker and hence, the provisions of section 92A of the Act were number attracted.
Though, I have held against the respondents, looking to the question involved, certificate as prayed, is granted.
In all the cases, claims were also made for payment of Rs.15,000/ as numberfault companypensation under section 92A of the Act.
As a result of the companylision and the falling down of the petrol tanker on its side, petrol started leaking from the tanker.
The owner of the petrol tanker and the insurance companypany then brought the matter to this companyrt in SLP number14822 of 1990 challenging the judgment and order of the High Court passed on August 16, 1990.
The Claims Ttribunal also observed that the local people were trying to steal petrol from the petrol tanker and the fire and the explosion were the result of their attempt to steal the petrol leaking out from the tanker.
The judgment of this Court, thus, put an end to the objections raised by the owner and the insurer of the petrol tanker against the claim of numberfault companypensation by and or on behalf of the victims of the fire and explosion accident.
After they came back from the village all of them, the driver and the cleaner of the tanker that had met with accident and the owner, the driver and the cleaner of the tanker companying from Sangli waited near the accident site.
In other words, it was the people who had assembled at the accident site and some of whom eventually died as a result of it who were responsible for causing the fire and explosion accident and the later accident had numbercausal companynection with the earlier road accident of the tanker.
Against the decision of the single judge, the owner of the petrol tanker and the insurance companypany filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court by judgment dated August 16, 1990.
A learned single judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and by judgment dated February 5, 1990, reversed the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
The SLP was dismissed by this companyrt by judgment and order passed on July 17, 1991.
The driver of the tanker tried to stop them from companylecting petrol or even going near the tanker, explaining to them that doing so would be risky and dangerous.
The appellant is the insurance companypany and it seeks to assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court in an appeal from a motor accident claim case.
The issue involved that is for the purpose of this leave to go to the Supreme Court is, whether the order of the Supreme Court under section 92A was for all purposes an interim order or it companycluded and decided the question as to whether the vehicle i.e. the tanker was in use when exploded.
As a result of the impact, the petrol tanker was thrown off the road and it came to rest on its left side cleaners side on the kutcha ground, about 5 feet below the road.
As it reached near village Kavathe, in the district of Satara, Maharashtra, a truck, bearing registration numberMEH4197, laden with onions, was companying from the opposite direction.
The fire and the explosion companyld number be said to be an accident arising out of the use of the tanker.
In this judgment, reported as Shivaji Dayanu Patil Anr.
At daybreak, the local people started companylecting near the fallen down tanker and some of them brought cans and tried to companylect the petrol leaking out from the tanker.
The tanker driver was unable to stop the leak even though he tried to tighten the lid.
The heirs and legal representatives of those people who died at the accident site filed claim petitions for companypensation under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the MACT, Satara, against the owner of the petrol tanker and its insurer, the present appellant.
The accident took place at around 315am.
One such appeal was filed by Vatschala Uttam More, whose son Deepak Uttam More was one of the persons who died as a result of injuries caused by the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker.
At the point where the two vehicles crossed each other, there was a pile of rubble on the left side of the road.
In the early hours of October 29, 1987 a petrol tanker bearing registration numberMXL7461, was proceeding on National Highway 4, companying from the Pune side and going towards Bangalore.
Later on, yet another tanker from Sangli arrived at the spot and then the cleaner of the ill fated tanker and the owner of the Sangli tanker together went to village Kavathe in search of a telephone to inform the tanker owner about the accident.
No one, however, listened to him and he was even manhandled.
The owner of the tanker and the insurer the respondents before the Tribunal companytested the claim petitions filed by the applicants under section 92A of the Act and questioned the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain such petitions on the ground that the fire and the explosion causing the death of those who had assembled at the accident site companyld number be said to be an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.
In that tanker, apart from the driver, there was also an officer of the Indian Oil Company.
No stay to the order of payment.
Against the order of the Claims Tribunal passed on December 2, 1989, appeals were filed before the High Court.
As the two vehicles crossed each other, the rear right side of the petrol tanker was hit by the rear left side of the truck.
vs. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 3 SCC 530 the Court companysidered at length, the questions whether the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker in which Deepak Uttam More lost his life companyld be said to have resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, namely the petrol tanker.
Though, having held against the insurer, the High Court, on a prayer made before it, granted certificate to appeal to this Court by order dated April 28, 2005, in the following terms Heard advocates for the appellant and respondents.
Both of them assured the driver of the fallen down tanker that they would report the accident at the police station and asked him to wait near the place of the accident.
In the melee, the petrol caught fire and there was a big explosion in which 46 persons lost their lives.
Shortly after the accident, another tanker, companying from the Bombay side passed by.
AFTAB ALAM, J. This is an appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India read with Order XV Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules,1966 on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court under Article 134A b of the Constitution.
The companyrt answered the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favor of the claimant and against the insurer.
