Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar, and Justice DY Chandrachud has held that accidents caused by a stationary vehicle also fall under the purview of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The facts of the case concern the death of a person by a piece of rock which fell on him from an adjacent field where the blasting operations for digging a well were being carried on. The blasting machine had been powered using the battery of a tractor. Furthermore, the insurer refused to pay any compensation on the grounds that commercial activities carried on by the blasting machine were against the requisite policies. The matter was raised in a tribunal where the issue for the court to decide was whether such an accident caused by blasting operations powered by the battery of an immobile tractor would fall under the purview of Section 65 of the MV Act and whether this use of the tractor for blasting operations was a commercial activity. The tribunal held that the accident had a causal connection with the use of the vehicle and that the use of the tractor to dig a well in an agricultural field was not a commercial activity. However, this decision was reversed by the High Court when it discovered that the batteries were in fact detached from the vehicle and thus, there could be no existence of any causal link. The High Court further pointed out the commercial nature of the drilling and blasting activities as well. As the claimants were aggrieved by the High Court orders, they appealed before the SC.
The Hon’ble bench referred to the ratios of several landmark cases including Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad & Ors., Samir Chandra case, etc., to arrive at its conclusion. The court pointed out the existence of a causal link between the falling of rock piece and the use of the vehicle and realized that it was sufficient enough to attract jurisdiction under the MV Act. The insurer was subsequently directed to pay the compensation to the complainant subject to the future High Court orders.
86540
103860
630
114
59824