Motor Vehicle Act - Injury caused while unloading marble slabs from a stationary truck - No compensation
Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. Court rules lack of causal connection between vehicle use and injury during unloading of marble slabs from stationary truck
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the appeal of Gagan Kumar, who sought compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained while unloading marble slabs from a stationary truck. The judgment, delivered by Justice Parmod Goyal, reaffirmed the necessity of demonstrating a causal link between the use of a vehicle and the accident to sustain a compensation claim under the said section.
The incident, which occurred on November 1, 2001, involved the appellant, Gagan Kumar, who was injured when a marble slab fell on him as he unloaded it from a truck bearing registration No. HR-58-0795. Kumar claimed that the accident resulted in a fractured leg and permanent disability, prompting him to seek a compensation amount of Rs.4,50,000.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri, had earlier dismissed Kumar’s petition, citing the absence of a causal relationship between the vehicle's use and the accident. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of any violation of Motor Vehicle Rules by the truck owner or driver during the unloading process.
Represented by Mr. B.S. Mamli, Kumar contended that the term "use" of a vehicle under Section 163A should encompass both the vehicle's motion and stationary position, and that the accident arose out of the vehicle's use. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Om Pal Sharma and Mr. Anmol Sharma Vashisht, argued against this claim, asserting that the injury was a result of Kumar’s negligence during the unloading process.
Justice Goyal, in his judgment, emphasized that while the definition of "use" in the Motor Vehicles Act is broad, encompassing both motion and stationary states, a direct causal relationship between the vehicle's use and the accident must be established. The court found that Kumar failed to demonstrate any act of commission or omission by the truck or its driver that led to the accident. Furthermore, the court noted that Kumar was not employed by the truck owner or driver but by the owner of the shop for unloading the marble.
The court also referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in Kalim Khan v. Fimidabee and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Nanabai, to underscore the necessity of establishing a causal link between the accident and the vehicle's use. These cases highlighted that while the term "use" has a broad interpretation, it must still be causally connected to the accident.
In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, dismissing the appeal on grounds of lack of evidence linking the vehicle's use to the injury. The judgment reaffirms the requirement for a clear causal connection in claims under Section 163A, ensuring that compensation is only awarded in cases where the vehicle’s use directly contributes to the accident.
Statutory provision(s): Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Gagan Kumar v. Jasvinder Singh, (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2786870
