Onus for damage from tractor battery

A person standing near a shop died when a heavy stone fell on his head. The stone flew from a place where digging of a well by blasting was taking place. The power came from a battery of a tractor insured under the ‘farmer package policy’. The insurer denied liability arguing that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and not agricultural purpose as claimed by the owner of the vehicle. The motor accident claims tribunal held that there was a breach of policy terms and therefore, the owner was liable. On appeal, the Bombay High Court reversed order and stated that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as the vehicle was ‘not in use’. In the appeal case, Kalim Khan vs Fimidabee, the Supreme Court interpreted the words “use of motor vehicle” in Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It ruled that the vehicle need not be in motion, but if there is a “causal connection” between the vehicle and the accident, the insurance company will be liable. The connection need not be “intimate” or have “direct nexus” with the accident. Therefore, the High Court was wrong to say that the vehicle was not in use. On the question of liability, the Supreme Court directed United India Assurance Co to deposit the compensation first and then sue the owner if he was found liable on the facts of the case. The case was remitted to the High Court to re-examine the facts and terms of the policy.