The Supreme Court recently held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) cannot be awarded merely because a vehicle was involved in the chain of events leading to a person's death..Thus, accident compensation under the MV Act cannot be claimed for an alleged murder inside a vehicle unless there is some link between the use of the vehicle and the death, the Court ruled.A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih held that there must be a connection between the use of the vehicle and the death before liability can arise under the Act."That does not mean that simply because there was a car somehow involved in a chain of circumstances that led to his death, the provisions of MVA would apply. Some link whatsoever between the car, and the death has to be established," the Court observed..The ruling came in an appeal filed by one Dilip Agarwal (appellant) against a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had upheld the compensation awarded to the wife and children of Anand, who was found dead after travelling in a car driven by Agarwal.The case arose from an incident on November 29, 2009, when Anand travelled in a car driven by Agarwal, his friend. Three days later, Anand was found dead near Binjkot village in Chhattisgarh. His wife lodged an FIR alleging that Agarwal and two others had kidnapped and murdered him as part of a criminal conspiracy.Anand's wife and their three children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of about ₹26 lakh. They alleged that Anand had been killed inside Agarwal's car and that the vehicle had been used in the commission of the offence..The trial court convicted Agarwal of kidnapping, murder, destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court later acquitted him after holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the last seen theory.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) nevertheless awarded ₹5.64 lakh with interest to Anand’s family. It held that although rashness and negligence had not been proved, Anand had suffered injuries while inside the car. The High Court upheld that finding and enhanced the compensation to ₹8.60 lakh.Agarwal then approached the Supreme Court..Before the Supreme Court, the principal question was whether Anand's death could be said to have arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle so as to attract liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.The Court explained that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the expression "arising out of" is wider than "caused by". Even so, there must be a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury or death.Applying that principle, the Bench found that no such connection had been established in the present case. It noted that there was no forensic evidence linking the car to the crime or any evidence that Anand sustained his injuries inside the vehicle. It said that the courts below had merely assumed that the injuries were inflicted while Anand was in the car, without any material to support that conclusion. Thus, it allowed Agarwal's appeal and set aside the judgments of the MACT and the High Court. It held that no liability could be fastened under the MV Act in the absence of a connection between the use of the vehicle and Anand's death. However, considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court directed that any compensation already paid to Anand's family shall not be recovered..[Read Judgment]
