JUDGMENT
V.K. Gupta, C.J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurer of the motor vehicle in question against the award dated 2nd August, 2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, in MAC Petition No. 83 of 1998, whereby, while allowing the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1-claimant, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/in ‘favour of the respondent No. 1-claimant and against the appellant.
2. Deceased Gita Devi died as she was engaged in the thrashing of the wheat . through a Thrasher which was propelled with a tractor, which was insured with the appellant at the relevant time. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that after thrashing some wheat, the deceased Glta and her husband (the husband died during the pendency of the claim petition) asked respondent No. 5 Tara Chand to stop the tractor so that they may collect the wheat grain under the Thrasher, When deceased Gita Devi was in the process of collecting the wheat under the Thrasher, respondent No. 5 Tara Chand without giving any alarm, signal or indication in a rash and negligent manner started the tractor as a result of which the Thrasher came in motion. By this, deceased Gita Devi got wrapped with the belt and struck against Thrasher, which was admittedly being propelled with the help of the tractor. She sustained injuries, which ultimately became the cause of her death. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that the-tractor in question could not be held to be the cause or the reason of the accident because the deceased Gita Devi received injuries while she was being wrapped under the Thrasher and that the tractor was being used only to supply the power to the Thrasher.
3. On going through the award impugned in this appeal, I find that the Tribunal has, by a very elaborate process of reasoning discussed the contours of the aforesaid submission because the Tribunal has taken note of the submissions made before it on behalf of the Insurance Company that even if the incident was deemed to be true and correct, it would not amount to an accident involving the tractor because the tractor was not in a moving condition and that the death had taken place because of the Thrasher. The Tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion, after referring to certain judgments on the subject, that the accident occurred’ because of the use of the tractor.
4. Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the subject-matter of Claims Tribunal. Under Section 166 of the Act, an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of Section 165 of the Act is to be made by the person, who has sustained the injury or where the death has resulted from the accident by the legal representatives of the deceased, amongst others. Under sub section (1) of Section 165 of the Act, it has been stipulated that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette constitute Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of a person arising out of “use” of motor vehicles. For ready reference, sub- section {1) of Section 165 is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus :-
“165. Claims Tribunals.- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter 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.
Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor Vehicles includes claims for compensation under Section 140 (and Section 163A).” –
5. The expression used in sub-section (1) of Section 165 is “use” of motor vehicles. The term “use” necessarily does not connote, for- the purposes of it coming within the scope and ambit of Section 165(1) of the Act, that a vehicle must be plied on the road. The uses of a vehicle can be of various types and for varying situations. One such situation with respect to the use of a motor vehicle is that it is being connected to a Thrasher and the Thrasher is dependent ;{even though to the limited extent of supplying the power) upon the tractor for its operation and unless the tractor is “used”, the Thrasher cannot be operated. Therefore, merely because the tractor, undoubtedly a vehicle within the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not being plied on the road does not necessarily mean that an accident had not occurred, arising out of the “use” of this motor vehicle,
6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore, i feel that the contention of Mr. Sharma has no merit and the Tribunal rightly rejecting the said contention allowed the claim petition. No interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed.
CMP No. 898/2003
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the presept-iapplication is also dismissed.