MV Act | 'Accident' Includes Sudden Slipping, Involvement Of Another Vehicle Not Necessary For Claiming Compensation: Bombay High Court

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court held that involvement of another vehicle for causing an accident is not necessary and a mere skidding or slipping of the motorcycle too can amount to an 'accident' making the victims entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. 

Noting that term accident was not defined under the Act and would include any sudden event harming a person, the high court granted compensation of Rs. 7,82,800 with @7.5% interest per annum to the kin of a woman who died in a road-accident after her saree got entangled in the chain of the motorcycle, due to which the motorcycle slipped on the road.

Single-judge Justice Shivkumar Dige quashed an order passed by a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), which refused to grant compensation to the woman's family on a plea moved by her husband.

As per the facts, the claimant man along with two of his minor sons, and wife, were travelling on his motorcycle. However, the fag end of the wife's saree, got entangled in the rear wheel, because of which the motorcycle fell on the road due to which the woman suffered a severe injury to her head and was declared brought dead. 

The MACT considering these facts, held that it was not an accident as no other vehicle was involved. However, Justice Dighe did not accept the findings of the Tribunal. 

"The term accident is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Lexis Nexis, 'Accident' means, 'a sudden unforeseen or unexpected event causing harm to a person. In my view, accident includes, collision, over turning or slipping. It is not necessary to have involvement of other vehicle to cause an accident like in present case," the judge held in the order passed on July 23.

Admittedly, the judge noted, the deceased was going on motorcycle and her saree got entangled in the rear wheel of the motorcycle and she fell on the road.

"It shows that, the death of the deceased was an accident. At the time of accident, the motorcycle was insured with respondent /Insurance Company. The accident caused due to use of the motorcycle, hence Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation," the judge observed.

Further, the judge junked the argument of the insurance company that since four persons were travelling on the said bike, the same was a breach of the insurance policy.

"Though four persons were travelling on the bike, but it has come on record that the deceased, her husband and their two minor children around three years of age were travelling with them, so it cannot be considered as breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy," the judge opined. 

The court allowed the appeal. 

Case Title: Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil

(First Appeal 1370 of 2019)

Counsel for Appellants: Advocates Avesh Ghadge and Akshay Shinde

Counsel for Insurance Company: Advocate Poonam Mital 

Click Here To Read/Download Order