IMPORTANT POINT
Murder of auto rickshaw driver by hirer while stealing autorickshaw would be an accident falling within Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 163A r/w Section 167-Accident arising out the use of the Motor Vehicle-Connotation of-Murder of auto rickshaw driver while stealing auto rickshaw-Whether accident-Unknown passenger hired auto rickshaw-Vehicle stolen and auto driver found murdered-Claim petition against owner of auto rickshaw and Insurance Company - Tribunal awarding compensation against Insurance Company-High Court holding case was not an accident but was murder and claim under Act did not arise-Held : death of driver was caused accidently in process of committing theft of auto rickshaw-Murder of auto driver was due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle-Motor Accident Tribunal rightly awarded compensation-Definition of word death in Workmen s Compensation Act applicable while interpreting word death in Motor Vehicles Act.
       Held : The Motor Vehicles Act does not define the word accident . However, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for payment of compensation for the death or injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident on a structured formula basis in Section 163A of the Act. Sub-clause (I) of the said Section says that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be; Sub-section (2) of the said Section also provides, in any claim for compensation under that sub-section, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person (emphasis supplied). A conjoint reading of the above two sub-clauses of Section 163A shows that a victim or his heirs are entitled to claim from the owner/Insurance Company a compensation for death or permanent disablement suffered due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle (emphasis supplied), without having to prove wrongful act or neglect or default of any one. Thus it is clear, if it is established by the claimants that the death or disablement was caused due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle then they will be entitled for payment of compensation. (Paras 7 to 9)
       There is no doubt that murder , as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominent intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. (Para 10)
       The deceased, a driver of the auto rickshaw, was duty bound to have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the auto rickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing the auto rickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver of the auto rickshaw, then it cannot but be said that the death so caused to the driver of the auto rickshaw was an accidental murder. The stealing of the auto rickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the auto rickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was caused accidentally in the process of committing the theft of the auto rickshaw. (Para 14)
       We do not see how the object of the two Acts, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen s Compensation Act are in any way different. In our opinion, the relevant object of both the Acts are to provide compensation to the victims of accidents. The only difference between the two enactments is that so far as the Workmen s Compensation Act is concerned, it is confined to workmen as defined under that Act while the relief provided under Chapter X to XII of the Motor Vehicles Act is available to all the victims of accidents involving a motor vehicle. In this conclusion of ours we are supported by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as per which provision, it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workmen s Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. A perusal of the objects of the two enactments clearly establishes that both the enactments are beneficial enactments operating in the same field, hence judicially accepted interpretation of the word death in Workmen s Compensation Act is, in our opinion, applicable to the interpretation of the word death in the Motor Vehicles Act also. (Para 15)
       In the instant case, as we have noticed the facts, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the murder of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation as claimed by them and the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion the the death of Dasarath Singh was not caused by an accident involving the use of motor vehicle. (Para 18)
       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 173-Appeal by Insurance Company-Condition precedent-Obtaining leave from the Tribunal is a must-Appeal without leave of Tribunal is not maintainable. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-One Dasarath Singh was a driver of an auto rickshaw owned by Lalit Singh. The vehicle in question was registered as a public carrier vehicle used for hire by the passengers. This vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. On 22nd of March, 1995, it is stated that some unknown passengers hired the above auto rickshaw from rickshaw stand a Dimapur between 5 to 6 p.m. It is also not in dispute that the said auto rickshaw was reported stolen and the dead body of driver Dasarath Singh was recovered by the police on the next day, the auto rickshaw was never recovered and the claim of the owner for the loss of auto rickshaw was accepted by the respondent-Insurance Company and a sum of Rs. 47,220/- was settled by the said company towards the loss suffered by the owner.

2. One Darshan Singh claiming to be a Power of Attorney holder of the present appellants filed a claim petition along with the present appellants under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) claiming damages for the death caused to the deceased Dasarath Singh during the course of his employment under Lalit Singh as a death caused in an accident arising out of the use of vehicle. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaland as per its judgment dated 24th of June, 1996 came to the conclusion that the death of the driver of the auto rickshaw (Dasarath Singh) was caused by an accident coming within the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, held that the owner of the vehicle was liable to compensate the death of the driver in money value. Since there was an agreement between the vehicle owner and the respondent-Insurance Company to compensate the employer of the vehicle, said legal and statutory liability stood fastened on the respondent-Insurance Company. The tribunal also held that the quantum of claim of the claimants stood established and consequently it awarded a sum of Rs. 2,81,500/- against the Insurance Company with interest @ 12% on the amount awarded from the date of application till payment.

3. The Insurance Company preferred an appeal by itself before the Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) in M.A. (F) No. 8 (K) 96. The High Court by its judgment dated 9.3.1998 came to the conclusion that there was no motor accident as contemplated under the Act. The High Court further held that the case in hand was a case of murder and not of an accident, hence a petition for claim under the provisions of the Act did not arise. The High Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and the award made by the tribunal.

4. Originally, the above mentioned Power of Attorney holder had preferred the above appeal making the wife and children of the deceased as proforma respondents along with the other respondent. By an order of this Court dated 18th of February, 2000 this Court felt that to protect the interest of the heirs of the deceased the wife and children of the deceased should be first impleaded as appellants to this appeal and the cause-title be amended, which having been done and notice being issued, the respondent-Insurance Company is represented before us.

5. We have heard the parties. Leave granted.

6. On behalf of the appellants, Shri Anurabh Chowdhury contends that the deceased was employed to drive the auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire and on the fateful day the auto rickshaw was parked at the rickshaw stand at Dimapur and at about 5 to 6 p.m. some unknown passengers had engaged the said auto rickshaw for their journey towards Singrijan area and thereafter nothing was known of the driver or rickshaw. It is only on the next day that the authorities were able to recover the body of the deceased and the auto rickshaw in question was never traced till date. The owner of the auto rickshaw has, therefore, been compensated by the Insurance Company for the loss of the said auto rickshaw, therefore, the murder of the deceased Dasarath Singh squarely comes within the word deat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 894

IMPORTANT POINTMurder of auto rickshaw driver by hirer while stealing autorickshaw would be an accident falling within Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder of auto rickshaw driver by hirer while stealing autorickshaw would be an accident falling within Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation to the claimants.