The death must be a result of the usage of a motor vehicle to be eligible for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the claimant must fall within the category of a workman as per the relevant legislation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 22.04.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1488 of 2002 on the file of the MACT / Principal District Court, Namakkal.)

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their Claim Petition filed in M.C.O.P.No.1488 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal, the petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The facts necessary to dispose of the above appeal are as follows and the parties are referred to in the same rank as in the Tribunal below.

2. The petitioners are the wife and the son of one Palaniappan, who was working as a Manager under the 1st respondent on a monthly salary of a sum of Rs.6,000/-. The deceased Palaniappan was aged about 55 years when he passed away. The case of the petitioners is that on 29.03.2002 at about 3.30 A.M., while the said Palaniappan was on duty as a Manager in a Company owned by the 1st respondent, he was assaulted by two workers of the same rig unit and strangulated by them. As a result, the said Palaniappan had died on the spot. Therefore, the petitioners had filed the Claim Petition stating that the 1st respondent as the owner of the unit and the 3rd respondent as its insurer was liable to compensate them for the death of the said Palaniappan.

3. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company had filed their counter.

4. The primary defense raised by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company was that the death was on account of murder and not due to the use of Motor Vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the petitioners for the death of the said Palaniappan and the murder appeared to be one for gain.

5. It was also the case of the 3rd respondent that in order to claim compensation, the petitioners have made use of the 1st respondent and its vehicle to convert it into an accident claim. Therefore, it is the case of the 3rd respondent that filing of the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act is without Jurisdiction and not at all maintainable.

6. The Tribunal below on considering the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary had come to the conclusion that the death was not on account of the usage of vehicle but was simpliciter a murder and dismissed the petition. As against which, the petitioners are before this Court.

7. Mr.C.Thangaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the death had taken place in the rig unit and it is an admitted fact that the deceased was employed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, since the accident had taken place when the deceased was on duty in the 1st respondent's company the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that the death was on account of an untoward incident and therefore the Insurance Company was liable to compensate the petitioners.

8. The learned counsel would submit that the presence of the rig unit would satisfy the provisions of the Act, namely, the usage of vehicle. The learned counsel would further argue that there is an Insurance Cover for seven employees in respect of Workmen's Compensation. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal below has to be set aside.

9. Per contra, Mrs.I.Malar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company would submit that the death by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a death on account of the accident during the use of the vehicle. It is murder simpliciter and therefore the petition invoking the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not maintainable. Even the argument that the policy covers the deceased Palaniappan would also not clothe the petitioners with a right to claim a compensation.

10. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.

11. Admittedly, the death had not occurred on account of the usage of vehicle but is out and out