The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle' and the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. The instant appeal is filed by the appellants-Insurance company to question and seek setting aside of the award dated 26.02.2018, for short impugned award, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, hereinafter, Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 13 and 199 titled Mehraj-ud-din Bhat and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,55,000/- (Five Lacs and Fifty Five Thousand Only) along with interest @ 6.5 % per anum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till its final realization, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The case of the appellants is that Ikhlas Ahmad Bhat, S/o Abdul Ahad R/o Amargarh Sopore, while working as Conductor of vehicle bearing Registration No. JK05A-5515 died due to an electric shock when the driver lifted the jack of the offending vehicle, for unloading some material, and came in contact with a high tension electricity supply line at Ashper Batapora on 25.04.2012. An FIR No. 111/2012 came to registered in this connection with Police Station Sopore under section 279 & 304-A of the RPC.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 being the mother and brothers of the deceased conductor filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking adequate compensation from the appellants for the loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased conductor.

4. In order to appreciate the claim put-forth by the respondents 1 to 4, the Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed certain issues for determination.

5. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case; the evidence on record and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,55000/- (Five lacs and Fifty Five Thousand Only) along with interest @ 6.5% per annum in favour of the respondents from the date of institution of the claim petition till its final realization.

6. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned award, the appellants filed the instant appeal inter-alia on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the incident in question was not an outcome of a vehicular accident but an electrocution, therefore, the appellants should not have been saddled with the liability to pay such compensation.

7. This Court, upon consideration of the matter, in terms of order dated 10.07.2018 stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to deposition of entire awarded amount before the Registry of this Court. An amount of Rs. 6,51,199/- as per report of the registry, has been deposited by the appellants on 2nd August, 2018 in compliance to the order dated 10.07.2018.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made.

9. The Tribunal, during the pendency of the claim petition, had formed certain issues for determination. Issue no. 1, being relevant, is taken note of herein-below:

“1. Whether an accident occurred on 25.04.2012 at Ashpeer Sopore, Kashmir by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK05A/5515 (tipper) by its driver respondent No. 2, as a result of which Ikhlas Ahmad has died? (OPP)”

10. The admitted position of the case is that the deceased died on 25.04.2012 when he was performing the duties of a conductor with offending bus bearing registration No. JK05A-5515. It is further admitted that it was during the unloading of the material loaded in the offending vehicle that the vehicle came in contact with a high tension electric wire resulting in the death of the deceased. The offending vehicle being under a valid insurance contract at the relevant point of time is also not disputed.

11. It has come on record during trial that the incident in question occurred because of the negligence of the bus driver. The Tribunal, in the impugned award, has specifically recorded that the appellants/respondent insurance company therein, has failed to examine even a single witness in support of its contention till its evidence was