The court affirmed that deaths resulting from a vehicle accident are compensable under the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of claims of murder, unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. As the common judgment is delivered in M.A.C.P. No.1614 of 1991 and M.A.C.P. No.1732 of 1991 by the learned Tribunal, I propose to dispose of two appeals preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act by the Insurance Company by this common judgment.

2. M.A.C.P. No.1614 of 1991 and M.A.C.P. No.1732 of 1991 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are partly-allowed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) and F.T.C. No.2, Vadodara by judgment and award dated 13.10.2008 and granted compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- and Rs.56,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization jointly and severally from the defendants. The appeal at the behest of the Insurance Company challenges this judgment and award.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under.

3.1 The facts are that on 07.01.1991 at relevant time, mauje Tarshali bypass, on national Highway No.8, Nala No.128/1, deceased Bharatsih Joresinh Mina was driver and other Badami Sukalal Mina was cleaner on truck. When they reached near on National Highway No.8, at that time wheel of the truck No.UP- 80-9890 ran over deceased Bharatsinh Mina and Badami Sukalal Mina and both were died on the spot. The opponent No.1 ran away from the spot. An FIR was filed bearing No.I-1 of 1991 at Makarpura Police Station. Thereafter, both claim petitions were filed before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Vadodara which partly allowed the said petitions. Hence, the present appeals.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for the Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr.Yash Jain appearing for the claimants.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati assails the impugned judgment and award by submitting that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in believing that deceased Bharat Mina and Badami Mina were died due to road accident. He would further submit that though the death of both persons was shown to be happened through road accident, in fact a priori they have been under the wheels of truck bearing Registration No.UP-80-9890, they have been administered poison mixed with cup of tea by Ramfal. He would further submit that on consumption of such tea, both the deceased lost their consciousness and never gained it. They were kept on road and then the truck driver ran truck over them to kill them. He would submit that it is a case of murder simpliciter. He would further submit that learned Tribunal failed to notice the documents produced along with Exhibit-53 which indicates that on the statement of Ramfal, the Police being investigating agency discovered that Ramfal had administered poison to kill both the deceased. He would further submit that even in the investigation papers the offence under Section 302 is added. Thus, he submits that this is a clear case of murder simpliciter. The death of both the deceased was never turned out of the road accident. The road accident is a camouflage to show killing of two persons by administering poison.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati also submits that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in taking up statement from the Postmortem Report to establish cause of death without noticing that viscera of the deceased was sent for FSL which demonstrates that even as per the belief of the doctor conducting autopsy, the death of the deceased was due to administring of poison. The issue is established by the finding of report by I.O. submitted to learned JMFC to add the offence of murder. He would submit that all these issues have been kept aside by the learned Tribunal while granting compensation.

7. He would further submit that deceased were killed due to personal vendetta by hired killer Ramfal so it is not a death of the deceased out of dispute arose for the vehicles which could termed as accidental murder.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati lastly submitted that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence produced