Ram Chandra and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation and ors. - Court Judgment

B.R. Arora, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment/award dated 14.1.1987 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalore, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.11.1983 Nathu Rarn, the driver of the Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation, at about 4.30 p.m. parked the bus No. RRM 1473 at the Bus Stand, Jalore. The bus was to commence its journey to Bhinmal. The booking of this bus started. The passengers bought the tickets from the booking window and after buying the tickets, boarded the bus. Rukmani w/o Ram Chandra alias Ram Kishan, Indra d/o Ram Chandra, Manju d/o Kesri Mal, Bajrang s/o Ram Chandra, Bhanwari d/o Misri Mal and other passengers boarded the bus after buying the tickets. Defendant No. 5, Banshi Lal, also boarded the bus. He was carrying one big jerrican and two containers of five litres each containing kerosene oil. Banshi Lal, in order to smoke biri, lit the match-stick. The kerosene caught fire and on account of the flames of the fire, Rukmani, Indra and Manju got severe burn injuries. They were taken to the hospital in an ambulance where they succumbed to the injuries. Rukmani breathed her last on 24.11.1983 while Indra died on 23.11.83 at about 4.00 p.m. Ram Chandra, the husband, Kailash and Bajrang, the sons of deceased Rukmani, on 1.5.1984, filed the Claim Petition No. 5 of 1984 before the Tribunal for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 2,77,000/-. Ram Chandra, the father of deceased Indra, also filed another Claim Petition No. 6 of 1984 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 3,44,000 on account of death of his daughter Indra. Both the claim petitions were opposed by the defendants and the defendants filed the written statements to the claim petitions. In the written statements, all the defendants took the objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims because the accident involving the death of Rukmani and Indra did not arise out of the 'use of the motor vehicle'. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after hearing the respective parties, upheld the objection raised by the defendants by a common order dated 14.1.1987 and dismissed both the claim petitions and refused to adjudicate the claims. It is against this award that the appellants have filed these appeals.

3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the accident, in which the death of Rukmani and Indra took place, occurred in the course of user of the bus for the carriage of passengers and, therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claims which arose out of the motor vehicle accident and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petitions filed by the claimants on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claims. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the bus was lying immobile at the time when the accident took place and the accident did not arise out of the 'use of the motor vehicle' and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the claims and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in dismissing the claim petitions filed by the claimants.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act') deals with the Claims Tribunals. Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act authorises the State Government to constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of the accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons, arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. These beneficial provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act for setting up of the Claims Tribunals for the purpose of victims of the motor accidents are enacted with a view to substitute the tardy procedure of the ordinary civil courts with speedy, expeditious and summary procedure. A special forum for the redressal of the grievances of the victims of the motor vehicle accidents and a simple and speedy procedure has been provided under the Act. It is not in dispute that the claim petitions in the present cases were filed by the claimants before the Tribunal which was set up by the State Government for the purpose of adjudicating the claims for compensation in respect of the accidents involving the death of, or bodily injuries to, the persons arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. The limited controversy, therefore, involved in the present case is: whether the present claim petitions for the award of compensation, filed by the claimants-appellants, in respect of the accident involving the death of Rukmani and Indra arose out of the use of the motor vehicle and as such these claim petitions are maintainable? The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of the expression 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' and the meaning of the word 'use' in this expression.

6. The dictionary meaning of the word 'use' given in Random House Dictionary of English Language, College Edn., is: to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of. According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., the word 'use' means: act of employing vehicle or the state of being employed. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word 'use' means: the fact or state or being used; to put into action or service; have recourse to or employment of; and according to Oxford English Dictionary,' Vol. 11, the word 'use' means: act of use or fact of being used; the act of employing the thing for any (specially a profitable) purpose; utilisation or employment for common word with some amount or purpose application or conversion to some (good or useful) act.

7. The jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal set up under Section 110 of the Act for adjudication of claims relating to the motor vehicle accidents can be invoked if two conditions are satisfied; namely, (i) the accident has arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle; and (ii) the accident has resulted in bodily injury to the person who is making the claim or the death of the person whose legal representatives are making the claims. The Tribunal has, thus, the jurisdiction to entertain claims relating to the accident in which the motor vehicle is involved. For the entertainment of the claims by the Tribunal, there must be involvement of the motor vehicle, the use of which has contributed to the accident. This section covers a wider field and includes all the employments of the motor vehicle. It enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of the motor vehicle accidents. It does not restrict the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the claims relating to the accidents where the motor vehicle was mobile. The state of the vehicle, whether it was in motion or stationary, is immaterial because its use is not ceased. The only requirement for the entertainment of the claims is that there must be relationship between the user of the motor vehicle and the accident which has resulted in the death or bodily injury. The section, therefore, covers the claims relating to an accident which occurred in the course of user of the bus for the carriage of the passengers, irrespective of the fact whether it was mobile or stationary.

8. The expression 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' used in Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act has a wide impact. While interpreting the expression, the causal relationship between the 'use of the motor vehicle' and the 'accident' resulting in the death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and proximate. Giving the restricted meaning to the expression to confine it to some active movement of the vehicle only, i.e., when the motor vehicle is mobile, would be against the object and intention with which the provisions have been enacted.

9. The expression 'use of the motor vehicle' in the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More 1991 ACJ 777 (SC). In this case a collision between a truck and petrol tanker took place and the tanker turned turtle. The petrol leaked out of the tanker. After about 4 1/2 hours of the accident, the tanker exploded and caught fire resulting in injuries to, and death of, several persons assembled near it. The question that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was: whether the petrol tanker though lying turtle was in use at the time of the explosion and fire and whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? The Supreme Court, after considering the law on the point, in para 26 of the judgment, held that:

The word 'use' has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck.

10. In Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation v. Chandi Bai 1989 (2) RLW 42, the deceased Nand Lal was going on a bullock-cart. Driver of the bus suddenly stopped the bus, as a result of which the pipes lying on the top of the bus fell on the deceased which resulted in serious injuries to him causing his death. The question that came up for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court was: whether the death of Nand Lal resulted from the accident arising out of the use of the bus? After interpreting the expression 'accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' the learned single Judge of this court held that:

The words 'accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' are of very wide amplitude. It is not necessary that the motor vehicle should itself directly cause the accident. If an accident occurs during the use of a motor vehicle, it will fall within the provisions of Section 92-A. Similar words have been used in Section 110-A of the Act.

11. In Krishna Roadways, Nathdwara v. Madan Lal 1984 ACJ 263 (Rajasthan), deceased Someshwar was sitting on the front side of the seat near the engine in the lap of his maternal uncle. The radiator cap flew open with the force of steam and boiling water fell on the child resulting in his death due to extensive burns over the body. The question raised before the learned single Judge was that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as it is not a motor accident as envisaged by Section 110-A of the Act. After interpreting the expression 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' the learned single Judge held that:

The expression used in Section 110-A is 'arising out of the use of motor vehicles'. The word 'use' has been used in a wide sense. The word 'use' in Oxford Dictionary has been defined to mean: 'purpose for which thing can be used'; 'application to purpose', 'employ for a purpose' and 'the right or power of using'. It has been admitted that Someshwar was sitting in the bus and was sitting on the front seat on the left of the engine out of which a portion of the radiator was coming out. The lid (cap) of the radiator was thrown by the force of steam and the boiling water from the radiator fell on the body of Someshwar which resulted in causing extensive burns over his body. It cannot be denied that the vehicle was not in use at that time. This sudden event or unexpected happening or misfortune happened causing burns not due to the fault of Someshwar but from the consequence of which he may be entitled to some legal relief. The vehicle was in use and while it was in use the unexpected event had happened.

12. In Padmanabhan Nair v. Narayanikutty 1988 ACJ 58 (Kerala), the deceased was a passenger in the bus which was on a trip from Cannanore to Vellachal. When the bus reached near the place called Macheri Srambi, a petrol can kept in the gunny bag near the back seat of the bus caught fire from the biri thrown by a passenger in the bus. The deceased who was sitting on the back seat was severely burnt and died in the hospital as a result of the burn injuries sustained by him. The contention raised before the Division Bench of Kerala High Court was that the bus, as such, has not been involved in the accident and the accident did not arise out of the use of the vehicle and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim. Repelling this contention the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, in para 13 of the judgment, held that:

Any accident occurring in the course of user for carriage of passengers, or otherwise, is liable to be compensated through the Forum provided under Section 110. This is in accord with the intent of the section which is to afford speedy, cheap and effective remedy in all cases involving motor vehicles. The basic requirement of such claims is only that it should arise out of the use of the motor vehicle, whether the vehicle itself got damaged in the process or not. There is no warrant for the contention that the accident should be to the vehicle itself. All that is required is that there should be accident, i.e., something unexpected and unintended and that should arise out of the user of the vehicle. In that event, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is attracted.

13. In Mangilal Kale v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corporation 1988 ACJ 460 (MP), the deceased, in order to board the bus, got his luggage kept on the top of the bus. While it was stationary, he was climbing up the ladders affixed to the bus to check the luggage kept on the top of the bus. The ladders gave way and he fell down and died. A contention was raised by defendants-respondents before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the bus was stationary and the accident cannot be said to have, arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle. This contention was repelled by the learned single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court and it was observed in para 7 of the judgment that:

From the meaning of the word 'use' extracted from the dictionaries aforesaid, it is clear that a motor vehicle which is in a state of being in the employment for any purpose can be said to be a motor vehicle in use. While the bus is in a state of motion it is employed in carrying passengers and while it is in a state of rest or stationary, it is still in the state of employment for enabling the passengers to alight from or board the bus or for loading and unloading the luggage. Indeed, a motor vehicle which is put on the 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 ccident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.

14. In Pushpa Rani Chopra v. Anokha Singh 1975 ACJ 396 (Delhi), a truck was parked on the side of the road. It was stationary as its axle had broken down. The three deceased were riding on a motor cycle, who were the father, son and the daughter. It was a dark night and there was no street light on the road. At about 10.45 p.m. the motor cycle of the deceased dashed against the rear portion of the stationary truck which resulted in the death of all the three motor cycle riders. The claim petition was filed. The contention was raised on behalf of the respondents that the truck, at the relevant time, was stationary and in an unworkable condition and was not in use and, therefore, the accident cannot be said to have arisen out of the use of the vehicle and, therefore, the determination of the claim petition by the Tribunal was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The contention raised by the respondents was repelled by Delhi High Court with the following observations:

The word 'use' occurring in Section 110 of the Act has been used in a wide sense. It covers all employments of the motor vehicle on the public places including its driving, parking, keeping stationary, repairing, leaving unattended on the road or for any other purpose. The driver of the offending vehicle had certainly taken out the vehicle and had driven it on the public road and had parked it, as its axle had broken down and then left it without reasonable precautions. If a vehicle is being driven and is stopped or parked for being repaired or otherwise, then it cannot be said that the vehicle is not being used. Supposing some driver thinks fit to stop a vehicle in the middle of a busy road and to start repairing it or decides to rest in the seat, it cannot be said that he can escape the liability by pleading that at that time the vehicle was not being used.

15. In Elliott v. Grey (1960) 1 QB 367, the interpretation of the word 'use' used in Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act, came up for consideration and Lord Parker, C.J., speaking for the court, observed that:

In the present case, although this car should be driven, there is nothing to suggest that it could not be moved. As I pointed out, in argument, for all we know it was on the top of a hill and a little boy could release the brake and the car could go careering down the hill. In the absence, at any rate, of a finding that it was immovable as, for instance, that the wheels were removed or something of that sort, I cannot bring myself to think that this car was not fairly and squarely within the words which I used 'have the use of a motor vehicle on the road'. Counsel for the respondents further contended that, even if the car was completely immobilised, an offence would be committed, but for my part I find it unnecessary in the present case to go so far. Here was a car which could be moved, albeit not driven and, in those circumstances I think that the owner had the use of it on a road within the meaning of Section 35 (1).

16. The word 'use' was, therefore, construed in a wider sense by the court to mean: to have the advantage of the vehicle as a means of transport including for any period of time and journeys and even if the vehicle could not be driven the appellant had the use of it.

17. In Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v. R.J. Green & Lloyd Pty Ltd. 1967 ACJ 329 (HC, Australia), the interpretation of the word 'use' used in Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1942-55 (N.S. Wales), came up for consideration. Speaking for the court, Barwick, C.J., while construing the word 'use' observed that:

The Act is not limited to the use of a vehicle in or upon public thoroughfares or to its use in movements; and that in choosing the expression 'the use of the motor vehicle' as the basis for the requirements of a policy of insurance and for the delimitation of the area of the indemnity to be obtained, the Act indicates an intention to cover a very wide field, a field more extensive than what might be called the traffic use of the motor vehicle.

18. The Hon'ble Chief Justice further observed in para 8 that:

The act of actually placing the load on the part of the vehicle designed to bear it during transport and for the purpose of its transportation must, in my opinion, be a use of the motor vehicle in the sense relevant to the Act and to the terms of the policy. In my opinion, the relevant use of the vehicle cannot be confined to the periods it is in motion, or its parts moving in some operation. It may be in use though stationary.

19. The position of law that emerges on the interpretation of the words 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' and the meaning of word 'use' used in the section, is that the Claims Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim only if it arises out of the use of the motor vehicle. The expression 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' postulates a causal relationship between the use of the vehicle and the accident which resulted in the death of or bodily injury to a person. The connection may not be direct and immediate but there must be a proximate relationship of the cause and the effect. It may be less immediate but still it carries a sense of consequence and must be connected with the use of the motor vehicle. It does not contemplate only active movement of the motor vehicle but includes all the employments of the motor vehicle even where the vehicle is stationary and is parked at the bus stand for boarding the passengers to its onward journey. The only requirement for the entertainment of the claims under the Act is that there must be relationship between the 'user of the motor vehicle' and the 'accident' which resulted in the death. The 'use of the motor vehicle', therefore, means to have the advantage of the vehicle as a means of transport. Its use cannot be confined to the period it is in motion only, i.e., in the moving state, because it may be in use while it is stationary, also. It includes the stage even when the vehicle is stationary at the bus stand being parked for taking the passengers for commencement of the journey. Thus, any claim relating to an accident occurring in the course of user for carrying the passengers can be adjudicated by the Tribunal set up under Section 110 (new Section 165) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

20. In the present case, the bus was parked by its driver Nathu Singh at the bus stand for taking the passengers. It was scheduled to proceed to Bhinmal. The deceased and other passengers bought the tickets and boarded the bus. Banshi Lal, also, took the ticket and boarded the bus along with one jerrican and two containers of the kerosene oil. He lit the match-stick for smoking biri. Kerosene in jerrican and containers caught fire and caused burn injuries to Rukmani and Indra. Though the incident was unforeseen but the accident occurred in the course of user of the bus. The use of the bus was the main contributory factor for the accident and is a related event. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot refuse to adjudicate the claim and determine the liability for the direct consequence. Learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, in error in dismissing the claim petitions filed by the appellants-claimants on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims as the accident did not arise out of the use of the motor vehicle. The judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

21. In the result, the appeals, filed by the appellants-claimants, are allowed. The judgment dated 14.1.1987 passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the cases are remanded to the learned Judge of the Tribunal to adjudicate the claims and decide the claim petitions in accordance with law.