Insurer remains liable when negligent vehicle operation causes fatal wall collapse without direct collision.

Tarun Bhardwaj, aged 21 years, was working as a labourer at L.N. Rice Mill, Kondatarai. While Respondent No. 6 was operating the insured loader tractor bearing registration No. CG 13 AN 6249 and pushing husk near an old boundary wall, the wall collapsed, causing fatal injuries to Tarun and injuries to Amit Sarathi. Tarun subsequently died during treatment at Jindal Hospital, Raigarh

The police registered a case under Sections 337 and 304-A of the IPC and later filed a charge-sheet against the driver under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹14,58,256 as compensation to the deceased’s claimants and fastened liability on the appellant-insurer

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the death resulted from the collapse of a wall and not from a direct collision with the insured vehicle

The judgment contains an apparent inconsistency regarding the accident date, referring to both 10.08.2020 and 10.08.2021

Whether the insurer can be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act when the deceased was killed by the collapse of a boundary wall caused by the negligent operation of the insured loader tractor, despite there being no direct collision with the vehicle?

Whether the Claims Tribunal’s finding that the accident and death were attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle was supported by the evidence on record?

Whether any breach of the insurance-policy conditions was established so as to absolve the insurer of liability?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal

It applied the principle that compensation may be awarded where actionable negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle has a direct causal connection with the accident and resulting death; a direct physical collision between the vehicle and the deceased is not indispensable where the vehicle’s negligent operation causes the harmful event

The Court also relied on the evidentiary significance of the FIR, charge-sheet, documentary evidence and unrebutted claimant testimony in determining negligence

Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC were referred to in relation to the criminal case and charge-sheet against the driver

The Court found that the claimants had produced unrebutted evidence, including documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-13, the FIR, charge-sheet and the sworn testimony of Hemlal Bhardwaj

This material established that the driver was operating the loader tractor rashly and negligently while loading husk and that the pressure exerted during the operation caused the adjoining boundary wall to collapse on Tarun and Amit

The Court rejected the insurer’s argument that liability could arise only from a direct collision, holding in substance that the negligent operation of the vehicle was the effective cause of the wall collapse and consequent death

Since the insurer neither produced contrary evidence nor effectively impeached the claimants’ testimony, and no breach of policy conditions was proved, the Tribunal’s finding fastening liability on the insurer was upheld

The Court found no perversity or legal infirmity warranting appellate interference

The Tribunal’s award of ₹14,58,256 and the fastening of liability on the appellant-insurer were upheld. The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed