Delhi High Court
Rajbir Singh vs V.K.Arora & Ors on 10 November, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: November 10, 2014
+ MAC APP. 750/2011
RAJBIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.O.P.Manie, Advocate
versus
V.K.ARORA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Manisha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
Wadhawan, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral)
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
MAC APP 750/2011 Page 1 of 4
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
MAC APP 750/2011 Page 2 of 4
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
MAC APP 750/2011 Page 3 of 4
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
