VATSCHALA UTTAM MORE Vs. SHIVAJI DNYANU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated the 22nd December, 1989 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara in M. A. C. P. No. 217 of 1988 whereby the applicants application under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for payment of compensation on the principle of no fault liability was rejected.

(2.) ON the 29th October, 1987 at about 4. 00 a. m. an accident occurred on the high-way never village Kavathe in Taluka Wai, District Satara. In a collusion between a truck and a petrol tanker, the petrol tanker was over turned and thrown on the side of the highway. The incident which gave rise to the filing of the present application occured at about 7. 00 a. m. when the tanker exploded killing 27 persons and injuring about 31 persons on the spot. The present applicant is a claimant in respect of the death of her son. She made an application to the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Member was pleased to hold that the explosion which occurred at about 7. 00 a. m. had no connection with the accident which had taken place at 4. 00 a. m. He found that certain villagers had tried to pilfer the petrol from the tanker. This may have been the cause of the explosion. According to him, this outside agency was responsible for the explosion and fire. This situation was created by the villagers themselves. Hence, the explosion could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of the tanker. Consequent upon these findings, the application was rejected. Taking exception to this order, the original applicant has preferred the present Appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel on either side, I am of the view that the learned Member of the Accidents Tribunal has erred in the view taken by him. It is no doubt true that the explosion which occured at 7. 00 a. m. has no concern with the accident which has taken place at 4. 00 a. m. However, the tanker in question was lying turtle by the side of the high-way. It is true that it was no bang on the high-way itself but some distance away, say about 20 feet from the main high-way. The learned Member was influenced by the fact that certain villagers were trying to pilfer petrol from the tanker at the material time. There, however, is no evidence to indicate that the explosion was a direct consequence of the attempt of pilfering the petrol from tanker. In my view, the learned Member was not justified in proceeding on the assumption that all the injured and the deceased were engaged in pilfering the petrol and the explosion was a direct consequence of the same.