Death resulting from a vehicular accident can be classified as accidental even if subsequent actions lead to homicide, depending on the intent of the perpetrators.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of compensation in M.V. Claim Case No. 59 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,96,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim application till realization of compensation amount, failing which penal interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Shorn of detail the deceased Clastus Lakra, who was driving an Ambulance bearing Registration No, JH-01K-6674, met with an accident when he dashed a motorcycle. After the accident the deceased was chased, assaulted and lynched by mob, regarding which Sadar Town P.S. Case No. 129 of 2008 was registered on 27.03.2008 under Section 304 of Indian Penal code. At the time of accident, he was aged 45 years and was getting salary of Rs. 6,000/- and a pension of Rs. 3,000/- from his past military service.

3. The award of compensation has been challenged mainly on the ground that a homicidal death has been given a texture of accidental death to claim compensation for which a claim case under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable. Absence of intention is the essence of an accidental death, whereas intention or knowledge in the commission of homicide has been made culpable under different provisions of the Penal Code.

4. In this case, it is argued that the F.I.R was lodged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet was also submitted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code which has been brought into evidence and marked as Exhibit 2. In this view of the matter, the accidental death comes under cloud and, therefore, the award of compensation is not sustainable. Further, penal interest of 9% per annum has been ordered against the ratio in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur reported in AIR 2004 SC 1581

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that significant to look into in this matter is the use of the vehicle and the death had occurred as a result of the use of vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1930 had an occasion to examine the meaning of the expression use of vehicle in Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act. It was held that in the case that the driver of Auto Rikshaw was highjacked and then the driver was done to death while the vehicle was carrying passengers on hire and the driver was on the duty.

6. It is further argued that whether compensation can be allowed in such case, the test is, if dominant intention was to kill the deceased or act to place because of employment or in the use of motor vehicle. Reliance is placed on Star Press Vs. Meena Devi , 2017 (3) T.A.C 580 (Del.) . It is argued that in this case there was no intention to cause death of the deceased and he fell victim to the vengeance of mob after accident took place.

7. In reply, it is argued by learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company that ratio laid down in Star Press (supra) case is misplaced as it will not apply for the reason that this was a case under Workmen Compensation Act, whereas the present case is under Motor Vehicle Act. It is argued that on similar fact situation in Smt. Dhela Rani & Another Vs. Sri Deepak Prasad and others, AIR 2009 (NOC) 1110 (JHAR), where murder took place due to quarrel between the drivers of two auto-rickshaw, the claim application under the MV Act was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.

8. Facts of this case are not in dispute that the deceased was driving an ambulance which met with an accident with a motorcycle. Deceased was thereafter chased and lynched by the mob.

9. It is nobody’s case that lynching of the deceased was on account of private animosity and evidence conclusively establish that the occurrence took place in the heat of moment, when the ambulance being driven by the deceased met with accident. From these facts it can be safely inferred that intention to kill was not the dominant