In Kalim Khan vs Fimidabee & Others, a person had died when a piece of rock fell on him from an adjacent field where blasting operations for the digging of a well had been going on. The blasting machine was powered using the battery of a tractor. The issue before the Court was whether the accident caused by blasting operations powered by the battery of an immobile tractor could be termed as “arising out of use of vehicle” within the phraseology of Section 165 of MV Act.
The Tribunal held that accident had a causal connection with the use of the vehicle. The Tribunal also found that use of the tractor for blasting operations to dig a well in an agricultural field was incidental to agricultural operations, and hence not a commercial activity. In an appeal by the insurer, the High Court reversed the findings. The High Court found that the batteries were detached from the vehicle, and hence it could not be said that the accident had any causal link with use of a vehicle. The High Court also opined that the use was commercial in nature.
The Supreme Court on appeal referred to Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another v .Smt. Vatschala Uttam More .,Samir Chanda v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation & Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad (Dead) and others and found that in each case the court wanted to see whether there has been some causal relation or the event is related to the act. It held that there was some causal link between the falling of rock piece and use of vehicle, which was sufficient to attract jurisdiction under MV Act.
The battery was installed in the tractor and the explosives were charged by the battery. The purpose was to dig the well in the field. In such an obtaining factual matrix, it would be an erroneous perception to say that the vehicle was not in use as stipulated under Section 165 of the Act, the Court held on facts.
Comments
Post a Comment