- (1.) THERE are two appeals brought at the instance of the claimants for death of two persons who died in an accident involving the insured's vehicle. The contention of the claimants was that they were travelling in the truck PB -12A 2321 belonging to the 1st respondent as workman and they died when the vehicle fell into a river by the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The claimants would, therefore, contend that since the death occurred on account of the negligent driving of the 1st respondent's driver, they should be compensated under the Motor Vehicles Act.
(2.) THE contention in defence was that they were not travelling in the vehicle but the vehicle had fallen into a river near Pabhat on 01.08.1998 at about 2.30 pm. An attempt was made to pull the truck with the help of a crane and the deceased persons were actually employed to pull the motor vehicle out of the river. At that time they fell into water and they died. The accident, therefore, according to the respondent did not take place in the manner referred to by the claimants. The statement in defence was accepted and the Tribunal, therefore, held that the claimants' contention was not true and dismissed the petitions.
(3.) I have examined the records with reference to the postmortem report to know when actually the death had taken place. If the vehicle had fallen into a river on 01.08.1998 even when the bodies had been retrieved later, the postmortem must have indicated the time as about the same time when the vehicle fell into the river if the deceased had travelled in the vehicle. One body appears to have been retrieved on 03.08.1998 and yet another body was taken out about 10 days later. The body which had been brought by the police for postmortem on 03.08.1998 was returned with report that the death must have taken place within 24 hours. This only synchronizes with the time when he could have been employed the following day and he had fallen at the time of retrieval of the truck. If he died even on 01.08.1998 then the report would have stated that the death had taken place more than 3 days earlier and the doctor's report itself would have shown that death had taken place more than 3 days earlier. The fact that the postmortem certificate indicates that the death had taken place within 24 hours would only show that death must have occurred only in the manner referred to by the respondents. Even if the defence were to be accepted, the further point that had to be seen was whether the death was the result of use of a motor vehicle. A person being employed for retrieving a motor vehicle and coming to fatalities would still be an occasion where the death must be taken to have arisen by the use of motor vehicle. The use of a motor vehicle which is the fulcrum on which any claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is possible has obtained an expansive interpretation by the Courts taking the Motor Vehicles Act to contain beneficial provisions and therefore, any death or bodily injury arising when the motor vehicle is used in any way not inconsistent with the manner of such user. We have decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Vs. Suman Navnath Rajguru, 1985 ACJ 243 where an accident that resulted when an oil tanker parked in a public place exploded and killed a passer -by was considered to be an accident out of user of a motor vehicle. In Shivaji Dayanu Patil Vs. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777, the Supreme Court has dealt with a situation where there was a collision between an oil tanker and another vehicle and merely because there was an interval of about four to five hours between the said collision and fire in the tanker, it could not be necessarily inferred that there was no causal relation between explosion and fire. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court said that it must be held that the explosion and fire resulting in the injuries which led to the death of the respondent's son was due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle viz. the oil tanker. In another case in Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2000 5 SCC 113 a passenger was last seen in an auto -rickshaw had been found murdered later. The auto -rickshaw was however not traced. The Supreme Court said that death must be construed as having been caused by an accident involving the use of motor vehicle and made the insurer liable.;