The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of what constitutes a motor vehicle accident under the MV Act and the application of the concept of accidental murder to determine liability for compensation.

P.K. Musahary, J.

1. The Insurer, who was Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition, has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as the " MV ACT") against the judgment and award dated 17.12.07 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur, Nagaland (hereinafter referred to as the ("Tribunal") in MAC Case No. 54/ 2001 wherein and whereby the Appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 19,636,840/- only along with interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. from 11.5.2001 within a period of 30 days from the date of order with further direction to deposit the said amount in the form of cheque or bank draft into the Tribunal for verification and disbursement to the claimant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.4.97, while the deceased Sailesh Kumar Sethi was coming out from the office of the Directorate of Supplies, Dimapur, Nagaland, along with one of his inmates in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. 05- 0341 driven by himself, arrived at the main gate of the office, an un-identified miscreant stopped him and asked the key of the vehicle for going somewhere. While the deceased and his fellow occupant refused to handover the key of the vehicle to the miscreant and in the process of snatching, stealing of the vehicle, the miscreant pumped several bullets through fire arm on the deceased and the inmate who was sitting inside the vehicle along with the deceased. Due to bullet shots the deceased died on the spot while the fellow occupant sustained bullets injuries on his hands and was admitted in the hospital. The deceased's wife Smti Shalini Devi Sethi and her 2 minor daughters filed the claim petition under Sections 140/ 166 of the MV Act before the learned Tribunal which was registered as MAC Case No. 54 /2001 claiming compensation of Rs. 32,10,880/-. The owner of the aforesaid vehicle Miss Sarshika Sethi and the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd., Dimapur, Nagaland were impleaded as O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The O.P. No. 1,minor daughter of the deceased, is the registered owner of the accident vehicle.

3. The Appellant-O.P. No. 1 filed written statements admitting that she is the registered owner of the accident vehicle and she is a minor. It was also admitted that her deceased father was using the vehicle for welfare of the family as a natural guardian who used to driver the vehicle. In the written statements she stated that being a minor daughter she had No. idea about the age, income and tax liabilities of her deceased father.

4. The O.P. No. 2 (present Appellant) contested the claim case stating inter-alia that the claim petition is not maintainable and No. cause of action arose to claim the compensation as it was a murder simpliciter which cannot be termed as accidental death or accidental murder and No. liability could be saddled upon the Insurer inasmuch as the deceased might have purchased the vehicle benami in the name of his minor daughter and in all practical purposes he was the owner of the vehicle and being an owner of the vehicle, it is not liable for payment of compensation in respect of the death of an owner of the vehicle. The insurer as O.P. No. 2 denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased and stated that the claim amount is highly excessive and arbitrary.

5. The learned Tribunal framed as many as 8 issues to decide the claim petition.

6. The claimant examined herself as P.W-1. The person who was present at the time of alleged accident, as an eye witness was also examined as P.W-2. The insurer-O.P. adduced No. evidence. The learned Tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation as indicated above.

7. Mr. Debnath, learned Counsel for the Appellant- Insurer submits that there was No. accidental murder within the meaning of the A