The incident in which the deceased lost his life was an accident, and the claimants were entitled to compensation under the M.V. Act, 1988.

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in MAC Appeal No. 271/2005, Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in MAC Appeal No. 15/2006 as well as Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in MAC Appeal No. 275/2005. None appears for the Insurance Company in MAC Appeal No. 270/2005 and 273/2005. Since all these appeals raises a common question of fact and law, hence, I propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgement and order.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgement and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon in the respective MAC Cases dismissing the claim petition by holding that the claim petitions were not maintainable since the death of the deceased resulted due to firing resorted by terrorists and the same did not occur due to the use of the motor vehicle in question.

3. The brief factual matrix of the cases is that on 31/07/1996, 6 (six) persons were travelling in an Ambessador car bearing registration No. AMA-1180. While the said vehicle was coming towards Padmapur through the PWD road at around 10-30 p.m., the vehicle was attacked by the extremists, who had open fire killing all the six travelers in the said vehicle and grievously injuring the driver of the vehicle. The six persons were (i) Sridam Das, (ii) Champa Das, (iii) Tara Bala Das, (iv) Suren Das, (v) Fulan Das and (vi) Sanjay Das. MACT Case No. 102/2004 was filed by the legal heirs of Sridam Das before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bongaigaon, which was disposed of by the judgement and award dated 29/07/2005 passed by the learned Member rejecting the claim of the claimants by holding that since it was a case of death due to firing resorted by the extremists, hence the claim for compensation under M.V. Act, 1988 would not be maintainable.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award dated 29/07/2005, the claimants in MAC Case No 102/2004 had approached this Court by filing MAC Appeal No. 24/2006. The learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the said appeal by the judgement and order dated 20/03/2014 holding that the claimants would be entitled for payment of compensation and as such, the matter was remanded back before the Tribunal for assessment of compensation. In the aforesaid judgement and order dated 20/03/2014, this Court while allowing the appeal had observed as follows :-

“8. Considering all attending facts and circumstances, more particularly the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bipal Bhasi Das (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Devi (supra), I feel inclined to allow this appeal by holding that the Tribunal erred in holding that the incident in which the deceased lost his life was not an accident.”

5. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that no appeal had been preferred by the Insurance Company against the order dated 20/03/2014, as a result of which the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon had assessed the compensation payable to the claimants in MAC Case No. 102/2004 awarding the compensation that was found to be just and reasonable. In terms of the award made by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has also paid the amount of compensation to the claimants.

6. It further appears from the records that the legal heirs of the remaining 5 (five) persons, who had died in the same accident, had also approached the MACT, Bongaigaon by filing similar claim petitions seeking compensation. All these MAC cases were also disposed of by similar judgement and order dated 29/07/2005 passed by the learned Tribunal in the respective cases by rejecting the claim for compensation on the same ground as in the MACT Case No. 102/2004. Consequently, the claim