The court clarified that deaths resulting from terrorist acts can be classified as accidents arising out of the use of a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, requiring broader statutory interpretation.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this common judgment, two appeals filed by the appellants/claimants against a common award dated 15.12.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby the claim petitions of the appellants have been dismissed, are proposed to be decided.

2. MA No. 41/2008 has been filed by the dependents of the deceased Sh. Vijay Kumar Phull against the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, whereas MA No. 70/ 2008 has been filed by the dependents of deceased Sh. Vinod Kumar Sodi against the same award.

3. It appears that the dependents of deceased Sh. Vijay Kumar Phull and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sodi filed two separate claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of Sh. Vijay Kumar Phull and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sodi respectively. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together as the same arose out of a single occurrence and were dismissed together by the Tribunal vide the impugned award by holding that it has no jurisdiction to try these claim petitions as the accident has not arisen out of the use of motor vehicle.

4. The facts emerging from the record reveal that on 05.12.2001, Sh. Vijay Kumar Phull, the then Principle District and Sessions Judge, Rajouri proceeded to his home town Poonch in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. JK02N-8458. He was accompanied by his friend deceased Sh. Vinod Kumar Sodi and two body guards. On reaching Dhonar near Bufliaz, some unidentified militants fired bullets on the said Car in which the deceased were travelling, as a result of which, Sh. Vijay Kumar Phull and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sodi as also the two body guards of Sh. Vijay Kumar Phull lost their lives. According to the claimants, the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle, whereas according to the respondent/insurer, it was a case of murder and not an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The dependents of deceased Sh. Vijay Kumar Phulll and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sodi by contending that the accident arose out of use of motor vehicle claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the owner of the offending vehicle, who had allowed deceased Sh. Vijay Kumar Phull to use the said vehicle at the time of the occurrence, did not contest the claim petition and he was set ex parte. During pendency of the appeals, even the owner is stated to have died.

5. The respondent/insurer in its objections to the claim petitions before the Tribunal has strenuously contended that it is not a case of an accident caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver, nor is it a case of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, as such, the claim petitions are not maintainable. It was submitted by the respondent/insurer that the deceased were killed by the militants as is evident from the police report and, as such, it was purely an act of terrorism and not an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Thus, according to the respondent/insurer, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation from the owner or the insurer of the vehicle in question.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.07.2003, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether deceased Mr. Vijay Kumar Phull and Mr. Vinod Kumar Sodi while travelling in their Maruti Car bearing Registration No. JK02N-8458 on 05.12.2001 was hit by the bullets fired by some unknown persons as a result of which they died on spot? OPP

2. In case Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative how much amount of compensation the petitioners