IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 302 of IPC and Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in determining liability and compensation in a motor vehicle accident resulting in death.

JUDGMENT :

MFA No.728/2014 is filed by the insurer and MFA No.4245/2014 is filed by the claimants. In both the appeals the judgment and award dated 23.10.2013 passed in MVC No.521/2007 by the II Additional District Judge, Member, MACT, Chickmagalur[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’], is under challenge. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the claimants that on the date of accident i.e., 3.6.2007 when one Sundar Naik[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’] was returning from work along with one Theerthaprasad in a motor cycle, a lorry came in a high speed and hit the motor cycle in which the deceased was riding as a pillion rider causing the accident in question wherein, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, his wife and children filed a claim petition arraying the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry as respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively. The said respondents entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. Subsequently, respondent No.4 was impleaded as the RC owner of the lorry. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1. Exs.P1 to P4 were marked in evidence. The police official was examined as RW.1, the representatives of the insurer as RWs.2 and 3. Exs.R1 to R8 were marked in evidence. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 23.10.2013 allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,69,500/-together with interest at 6% pa. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed.

4. Learned counsel for the insurer assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal submits that the charge sheet (Ex.R1) is filed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ ]and not under Section 304A of IPC. That the insured vehicle was used for committing a murder, as a result of which the accident has occurred. That the death of the deceased not having arisen due to an accident, the question of awarding compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] does not arise. It is further contended that the claimants have averred in the claim petition that the income of the deceased is Rs.6,000/-pm., and hence, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act was not maintainable by the claimants. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the above appeal and granting of the reliefs sought for. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:

i) United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors., v. Anitha & Ors., ILR 2007 KAR 28;

ii) Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation v. Lakshmamma & ors., ILR 2007 KAR 4488.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was riding as a pillion rider in the motor cycle and the murder that was sought to be committed was of the rider of the motor cycle, namely, one Theerthaprasad, and there was no intention to commit the murder of the deceased who was riding as a pillion rider. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal regarding the said aspect of the matter is just and proper and not liable to be interfered with. Further, he submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced. In support of his contentions, he relies on the following judgments:

i) Sharabai & anr., v. P.Sahebkhan & ors., 2006 ACJ 229 ;

ii) Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, 2022 ACJ 166.

6. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are:

i) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 as to the claimants proving that the death of the deceased was as a result of a road traffic accident from the use of the insured vehicle is just and proper?

ii) Whether the quantum of compensatio