Rajbir Singh v. V.K. Arora & Ors.

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the award dated 17.03.2011.

2. The brief facts are that on 18.10.2010 the appellant was going on duty on his motorcycle. At Indian Oil Petrol Pump near Model Town, he stopped his motorcycle and was about to get down to check air pressure of the tyre of his vehicle. The alleged offending vehicle i.e. the santro car driven by respondent No.1 is said to have been driven rashly and negligently at a very fast speed came from the front side of the petrol pump and hit the right side of the front tyre of the motorcycle of the appellant. The appellant lost hi balance and fell down. Due to this, a fight started between the appellant and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is said to have picked up a big cement boulder and threw it towards the appellant as a result of which the right leg of the appellant got fractured. FIR No. 378/2010 under Section 279/337 IPC 2014:DHC:5862 was registered. It is contended that the appellant got injured and sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had fallen with his motorcycle due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the santro car because of which he must have got some hurt. Based on this injury, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering and passed an award accordingly. No compensation was awarded for the injury caused due to the fight with respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant impugns the award stating that there was a direct nexus between the fracture sustained by the appellant in the hip and the motorcycle. He relies on Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. vs. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shiv Dutt Sharma, 2004 ACJ 2049 and Rita Devi & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2000 ACJ 801 to contend that the appellant is entitled to compensation as he had incurred medical expenses of Rs. 11,813/- and was on bed rest for two months. The appellant claimed Rs.[5] lacs before the Tribunal.

5. In my opinion, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no assistance to the appellant. Section 165 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:- “165 (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of 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.”

6. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to compensation in case the bodily injury has arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle. In the present case, in my opinion, the injury has resulted on account of scuffle between the appellant and respondent No.1 and it cannot be termed to have arisen out of the use of motor vehicle. I will now deal with the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant.

7. In Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. vs. Vatschala Uttam More (supra) a collusion had taken place between a truck and a petrol tanker and the tanker turned turtle. After 4-1/2 hours of the accident, the tanker exploded and caught fire resulting in injuries and death of several persons assembled near it. The Supreme Court held that when the petrol tanker collided with the truck, the truck was being used for the purpose of transporting petrol. Hence, it cannot be disputed that when the collusion took place it was a motor vehicle as expressed in the Act which did not cease to be a motor vehicle thereafter. The facts of that case were different as the accident was caused due to explosion of the tanker i.e. a motor vehicle.

8. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shiv Dutt Sharma (supra) was a case where the passengers in the bus and other using the road nearby were killed or injured due to a bomb blast in the bus and the blast took place due to carelessness of the driver. It was held that obviously injuries and death has taken place due to the incident involving a motor vehicle.

9. Rita Devi & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (supra) was a case where some passengers hired an auto rickshaw. It appears that the object was of stealing the auto rickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object, they killed the driver of the auto rickshaw. The Supreme Court held that the deceased being a driver of the auto rickshaw was duty bound to have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. In the course of this duty the passengers decided to commit their act of stealing the auto rickshaw and while achieving the said object, they had to eliminate the driver. In those facts, the Supreme Court held that it was covered as a motor vehicle accident.

10. In my opinion, the facts of the above cases are entirely different. In the present case, the compensation for the injury that occurred due to the motor accident compensation has been awarded to the appellant. What the appellant is seeking is a compensation for the injury which took place due to the scuffle between him and respondent No.1 which injury is not connected with a use of a motor vehicle.

11. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

JAYANT NATH, J. NOVEMBER 10, 2014 rb