The claimant must establish a proximate relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident/incident resulting in death or injury to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. This appeal, by the insurer, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.11.2002, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagaland, Dimapur in MAC Case No. 117 of 1998. By the aforesaid award dated 15.11.2002, learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,22,000 in favour of the respondent-claimant on account of the death of her son in an incident which has been found by the learned Tribunal to have arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle (autorickshaw) bearing registration No. NL 01-T 2217.

2. To appreciate the challenge made, the cases brought by the respective parties before the learned Tribunal may briefly be noticed at this stage.

Respondent No. 1, claimant, is mother of one Kughavi who, it is claimed, was traveling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. NL 01-T 2217 on 11.10.1997 as a bona fide passenger. According to the claimant-respondent, on the said date, when the autorickshaw was passing through Eros Line, some unidentified persons tried to stop the vehicle, but the driver of the vehicle instead of stopping had speeded away. Thereafter, according to claimant-respondent, the persons who tried to stop the autorickshaw fired on the autorickshaw from behind and the bullet hit the son of the claimant-respondent killing him on the spot. According to claimant-respondent, the driver of the autorickshaw fled from the place of occurrence and thereafter the assailants had set the autorickshaw on fire. On the above facts, claimant-respondent approached the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of the death of her son and contended that such death had occurred while her son was traveling in the autorickshaw as a bona fide passenger and, therefore, the incident in which her son was killed occurred in the course of the use of vehicle in a public place. On the basis of the claim petition filed, MAC Case No. 117 of 1998 was registered before the learned Claims Tribunal at Dimapur.

3. The claim made by the claimant-respondent was resisted by the appellant insurer as well as the owner of the vehicle by filing their respective written statement.

In the written statement filed, the appellant insurer, apart from putting the claim out to strict proof that the autorickshaw was driven under a valid permit and by a person having a valid licence at the time of the incident, had contended that the statements made in the claim petition and the police report filed along with had clearly established that the death of the son of the claimant-respondent was on account of a murder which was committed at a time when the deceased was traveling in the vehicle. The insurer had, therefore, pleaded in the written statement filed that the alleged incident was not on account of the use of the motor vehicle and that there was no rash and negligent driving of the vehicle leading to the death of the son of the claimant. The insurer had also contested the claim of the respondent-claimant on the point of quantum of the compensation, if any, payable.

The owner of the vehicle (autorickshaw) in the written statement filed, had taken the stand that on the relevant day, the deceased along with another were traveling in the autorickshaw forcibly and they were being chased by some unknown miscreants in 3 Gypsy vehicles. Owner of autorickshaw, in the written statement filed, had further taken the stand that the aforesaid unknown miscreants who were chasing the deceased and his co-passenger overtook the autorickshaw and subsequently shot dead the son of claimant-respondent and abducted his co-passenger.

4. On the basis of pleadings advanced by the parties as noticed above, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues for trial in the case. The aforesaid four issues may be conveniently set out hereinafter:

Issue 1: Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form and is the Tribu